A discussion of differences and similarities between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity

Main menu

Post navigation

Jesus Was A Polygamist?

This painting screams at me that LDS view Jesus as a polygamist. Is that its intention? As a non-Mormon I find this image a little disturbing and creepy. What is the general LDS opinion on it? Hat Tip to az10

————————————————————————————————————————

DISCLAIMER: ( 12/29/08 ) Due to a high search ranking this post earns on Google many pass by without reading the comments or the general context of this discussion. All comments remain welcomed. If you’re a Mormon teenager in Utah, then your comments are doubly welcomed (based on their comedic value alone).

The author understands that the intention of the artist was perhaps not to further propagate this teaching. Given the previous LDS teachings and the inappropriate way some of the girls are postured (how many teenage girls touch a teacher/minister/adult/mentor in this manner?) I feel the painting’s intended meaning remains somewhat obscured.

Like this:

Related

About Tim

Evangelical Christian living in Southern California. I live with my wife and whatever foster children happen to be in our home at this moment. I love photography, baseball, movies and I'm fascinated by Mormonism.

Hold on now. I’ve seen this photo before and have never been under the impression that it was promoting the idea that Jesus was a polygamous. It is just depicting Jesus with four women that are spending time with him as his disciples, not wives. There are many pictures by LDS (and non-LDS) artists depicting Jesus surrounded by children, but we don’t jump to the conclusion that Christ was a pedophile.

I think you have to take the picture for what it is unless it is stated otherwise. I don’t think this is some kind of cryptic message to other LDS members.

I think this was a pet theory of several early LDS leaders. Orson Hyde, an early LDS apostle, for instance wrote that Jesus was probably a polygamist. He inferred it from New Testament accounts of Jesus being followed by “many women.”

Personally, I think it’s a stretch at best. I don’t think the New Testament gives us any real firm reason to believe that Jesus was married to even one woman during his mortal tenure, much less several. A popular notion among Mormons is that Christ was married to Mary (the one he appeared to in the Garden after his death). But we have no real proof or official revelations on the matter. Just speculation.

Some have cited the idea that you needed to be married to become an accepted rabbi in ancient Judea as evidence that Christ would have been married in mortality. But I don’t think it’s even close to being a slam dunk.

I would note that Mormon thought does posit that Christ would eventually need to be married – whether in mortality or in the afterlife. Just as God the Father is believed to be married.

I don’t find the painting “creepy.” Nor do I find polygamy per se particularly “creepy.” I find Warren Jeffs and Green “creepy,” but that’s not the same thing.

I do find the painting a bit cheesy though. Which is kind of par for the course with LDS, and mainline Christian popular art.

Seth, “Some have cited the idea that you needed to be married to become an accepted rabbi in ancient Judea as evidence that Christ would have been married in mortality.” I agree with you that this is no “slam dunk,” seeing that Jesus hardly seemed concerned at other times with gaining acceptance as a rabbi.

The reason I find the painting creepy is that it seems like a way to introduce unsupportable doctrine in a memorable way:

“I know Jesus was a polygamist.”

“How do you know?”

“Dude, I saw the pictures.”

And yeah Jay and Kullervo, there’s nothing explicit in the painting to suggest marriage (I looked: there are no rings on their fingers!). But those women seem a bit too dreamy-eyed to be merely disciples. If they weren’t intended to look like wives, then I retract my “creeped out” vote and replace it with a “careful with the facial expressions” vote.

It’s also the way the women are postured and their proximity to Jesus, particularly the two blond girls. How many times have you seen a girl kneel that way next to a man? In what context have you seen a girl place her hand on a man’s shoulder? They don’t appear to be learning some deep important truths, but rather gazing longingly at him.

There’s also something about that rose, which anyone who has studied art would find at the very least to be an unfortunate placement. If the painter has studied at the university level, he would know better.

Well, I suppose there is room for speculation (just like with any painting, anyone ever heard of the Divinci code), but I’ll have to stick with the fact that this painting was not intended to send a message that Jesus was polygamous. Any attempt to make it fit such a doctrine is misplaced and does little more than spread needless gossip.

It might be profitable to know who the artist is so that we can look at more of his/her work and see if the polygamous “theme” holds true to other paintings he/she has done or if there are other unfortunate placements of floral arrangements. If not I’m afraid I’d have to throw out the idea that this painting promotes any type of sexual message.

Jay, I agree that the painting probably wasn’t created to convey the idea that this is Jesus and his wives. But it’s a poorly conceived illustration for a faith that is so desperately trying to run from its polygamous past. If this is just supposed to be Jesus with some teenage girls, the posturing is still inappropriate. I would not want to see my teenage daughters sitting with or touching any man like that.

Something I’m learning in my own religious expression is that what we convey to outsiders may be more important than what we convey to insiders.

I agree that this is a poorly conceived illustration, but would challenge the notion that Mormonism is a “faith that is so desperately trying to run from its polygamous past.”

I would argue that Mormonism is desperately trying to rid itself of any connection with modern-day Mormon Fundamentalists, and that some Mormons seek to divorce themselves from the Church’s polygamist past (see: Mitt Romney).

However, many Mormons (primarily descendants of polygamists) still take a great deal of pride in their polygamist heritage (just talk to any Mormon that is descended from George Q. Cannon). And, D&C 132, which identifies polygamy as acceptable (even essential at times) in God’s eyes, is still canonized scripture for Latter-day Saints.

I agree that this was either a terribly conceived arrangement or a perverted hidden message. Done in bad taste either way. And I mostly loathe all LDS pop art anyway (even if it’s hanging in a temple).

“However, many Mormons (primarily descendants of polygamists) still take a great deal of pride in their polygamist heritage (just talk to any Mormon that is descended from George Q. Cannon). And, D&C 132, which identifies polygamy as acceptable (even essential at times) in God’s eyes, is still canonized scripture for Latter-day Saints.”

Yup. I’m one of those people.

I have no real personal desire to practice polygamy. I don’t think it would work very well in practice in today’s cultural atmosphere. I also don’t think I’m cut out for it. I’m just fine with one wife, thanks.

I think that the polygamy that is currently being practiced is rather warped by the culture of isolation and secrecy that seems to accompany such communities. This leads to inevitable abuses. If you can legitimately nail a polygamist for tax evasion, welfare fraud, child abuse, or statutory rape, I’m quite supportive.

But don’t think that I’ve even come close to rejecting our “polygamous heritage.” Mormonism’s historical practice of polygamy, like America’s historical practice of monogamy, is a mixed bag. There was some ugliness, but some virtues as well. I simply don’t view the practice as an unqualified negative.

I see no reason to apologize for my great great granduncle Aaron Johnson and his 23 wives, when across the border in Wyoming, plenty of God-fearing monogamists were beating their wives, and sleeping around with prostitutes.

And just to clarify: the LDS Church has discontinued the earthly practice of polygamy. They never renounced the essential doctrine as it is found in the Doctrine and Covenants. Just be careful not to mix up the essential doctrine with superfluous additions and speculations that many past Church leaders tacked-on to it.

As a general matter, Joseph Smith was more of a visionary leader than a practical one. I think the implementation of many of his ideas (or mandates as Mormons would contend) suffered a bit as a result. Joseph’s implementation of polygamy was a rather messy affair.

However, I think that by the time the practice was well established in Utah, it had moved beyond its messy beginnings to some degree. The practice was pretty open in Utah society and there were actually societal restraints upon the practice.

But you may be right that similar dynamics were at play in 1800s Utah as are in play today. It might even be a reason that God decided the practice needed to end.

It wouldn’t be the first time God withdrew a commandment due to the failings and weaknesses of His people, as a cursory reading of the Old Testament quickly reveals.

But I think if you are going to fairly judge polygamy, you cannot do so by automatically comparing the worst of its consequences with the best that monogamy has to offer. If you want to compare monogamy with polygamy, you have to do so on an even playing field. Polygamy’s best compared to monogamy’s best. And monogamy’s worst compared to polygamy’s worst.

And then you have to keep historical context firmly in mind. It won’t do to judge the comparative weirdness of early Mormonism’s polygamists through the lens of 21st century values.

Has anyone considered whether the artist painted 4 pretty, young girls with Jesus because he had 4 pretty, young daughters and he thought it would be meaningful to them? The posturing and rose imagery are still creepy but maybe there is a less unpleasant cause behind it.

But I think if you are going to fairly judge polygamy, you cannot do so by automatically comparing the worst of its consequences with the best that monogamy has to offer. If you want to compare monogamy with polygamy, you have to do so on an even playing field. Polygamy’s best compared to monogamy’s best. And monogamy’s worst compared to polygamy’s worst.

I’ll take that challenge. In fact, I’ll give polygamy an advantage, let’s look at the most righteous men we can think of and determine how polygamy went for their families.

Oh, I never claimed to be the right person to mount such a defense. Firstly, I haven’t done it. Secondly, I don’t have a full sense of the history behind the practice. The Mormon blog Feminist Mormon Housewives has debated the issue extensively, as have some of the sidebar Mormon blogs, this blog references to. They never reached a resolution, and I doubt we will either.

However, I would simply note that, whatever Hollywood says, I do not think the human heart has room for only one person in it.

If you really think it through, the LDS faith’s belief in eternal families seems to necessitate polygamy in at least one circumstance. What about the man who loses his first wife in death, and then remarries? Is it expected that there will be a choice made in the afterlife of which one is loved more?

But, to be honest, my biggest conundrum about polygamy is the inherent inequality of it. Under current Mormon temple marriage practices, a man can be sealed to more than one woman, under the circumstances I outlined above. But a woman however, would be required to choose between the two men in her life if she were in a similar situation.

I have no answer for that. The typical Mormon response is that we shouldn’t worry about it and all will be sorted out in the hereafter.

But such an answer doesn’t really make for satisfying blog conversations.

It’s a pretty common Mormon idea. I don’t know that it’s “offocial doctrine” whatever that is, but Brigham Young explicitly taught that Jesus was married and that he was crucified for practicing polygamy, which the unnaturally monogamous Romans found abhorrent.

Ah, yes, I have met several Mormons who believe that Jesus was married. To be clear: those I have talked to that have this belief are in the minority. Moreover, I have also met several non-Mormons with this belief, and I am not sure that there is any difference in the prevalence of that belief in or outside of Mormons.

But you extended that to say that he was killed for practicing polygamy. That is the part that was new to me. Did you mean to say that a polygamist Jesus was a “pretty common Mormon idea”?

As a Mormon I’m open to the thought of Jesus being married. I think it takes nothing away from his divinity of being God. I don’t teach it since it’s not official doctrine and inconsequential to my personal salvation. I would need the context of the painting to draw a conclusion though. Focusing on doctrines of speculation started the “anti” movement.

oh come on…how could you not look at this like it’s creepy…he’s holding flowers and two of the women are touching him romantically. It looks like he’s inviting the other woman to sit on his lap or something…maybe if it was like a girl and a guy with him, but being surrounded by four girls? Way too obvious.

Well, let’s see… The rose in Jesus’ lap, definitely a phallic representation. The roses held horizontally on the woman’s lap, representative of deflowering, as opposed to the erect rose held by Jesus. Definite sexual tones. Everyone dressed in white robes, celestial marriage, afterlife. Jesus surrounded by women, wasn’t he always surrounded by women during his ministry? The women’s expressions, sure, they are in love with him. What woman wouldn’t fall in love with Jesus? Think about it. Pick 100 men, or 1000 men, put them in front of a woman and allow them all to give their best pick-up line. When Jesus opened his mouth, the woman would feel his words in her heart, which would melt. All woman would naturally want Jesus, the epitome of manliness. That’s a no brainer. Jesus in the painting is obviously talking about how bees pollinate flowers, “they go into the flowers,” etc. Since Jesus is a moral man, these women would probably be his wives, if not now, then later. Polygamy was allowed in the time of Jesus, so, what of it? Besides, in the gospels, Jesus even gives a parable of the ten virgins and refers to himself as a polygamous man (the bridegroom!)

I saw this painting for the first time at church this week, and first I laughed out loud, and then I was creeped out. This is definitely creepy and I wanted to take it down so I wouldn’t be forced to look at it again.

Seth R…
“I see no reason to apologize for my great great granduncle Aaron Johnson and his 23 wives, when across the border in Wyoming, plenty of God-fearing monogamists were beating their wives, and sleeping around with prostitutes.”

Give me a break. If men are doing the above they are NOT christians!!!
Just saying something doesn’t make it true.

Personally I find the painting is both creepy and cheesey, but so are many LDS doctrines. However there are many wonderful people in their grip, some of whom are good friends.

Ummm, hello?
How do we even know it’s an LDS painting? It’s nice that it awakens certain issues for discussion which is important, but keep in mind this is single person’s work and by no means is doctrinal or used as representation for anything in the LDS church.

I’m LDS and the 2nd Counselor in the Young Women’s Program. I teach the 12 and 13 year old class. This painting is actually in our room. This painting was meant to show the loving relationship Christ has with the Young Women of our world. It helps are girls to be reminded of the relationship they have or can have with him. It is no different than if someone were to paint a picture Christ surrounded by a group of young men. I find it to be a beautiful painting, depicting the individual relationship he has with each and every one of us. To think that this painting has anything to do with those young girls being brides of Christ is…unreal.

As far as polygamy is concerned, LDS has not practiced that for some 200 years. We in no way agree and approve of the practice.

… I was looking for a different picture when I stumbled across this site and I couldn’t continue on without saying anything. I’m really sorry that some people feel the way they do about LDS and could “nit pick” things like this painting and cause others to feel as though they have to defend the sanctity of their _personal_ beliefs.

Brigham Young did NOT teach that Christ was a polygamist. I’m sorry if that’s what some are saying but they have been terribly misinformed. Christ was a sacrifice for us so we could some day return to our Heavenly Father, period.

Wow. I hadn’t read this post before, and have certainly never seen this painting before. Though, from the style and representation of Jesus, I would guess Del Parsons, and I’m pretty sure he is Mormon.

I think Walter Rane could have done much better, since he is the best LDS artist by far.

Brigham Young did NOT teach that Christ was a polygamist. I’m sorry if that’s what some are saying but they have been terribly misinformed. Christ was a sacrifice for us so we could some day return to our Heavenly Father, period.

It might have been Orson Hyde,but that’s putting a pretty fine point on it.

As far as polygamy is concerned, LDS has not practiced that for some 200 years. We in no way agree and approve of the practice.

That’s not at all accurate. The church still agrees with the practice, it just says it shouldn’t be practiced right now. D&C 132 is still in the canon and the church still performs multiple sealings for men whose wives have passed on.

The church was still secretly practicing polygamy well into the 20th Century, less than 100 years ago.

HOLD IT! Wait, wait, wait before you come to conclusions. I know this picture and it has nothing to do with polygamy.

Let me me explain this picture. This picture was in our young womens room in my church. Young Womens is for girls 12 through 18. This picture is to show that Christ is our friend and is in the center of our lives. That christ listens to us young girls (as you can see these are young girls, not old girls)
Do you see the flowers in this picture? Those flowers have to do with our theme in the Young Womens. Each flower has a different color representing a value such as: faith, divine nature, individual worth, … etc.

No one’s “freaking out” Rachel. But this is an indisputably bad painting. Given all the controversies surrounding Mormonism, it’s also a very unfortunate painting. Just sends the completely wrong message to outsiders. Any LDS meeting house that has this painting up, ought to take it down immediately and never let it see the light of day again.

It sounds like Latter-day Saints are somewhat (or very) conflicted about polygamy. The LDS people I have spoken to regarding these polygamous sects get really angry if you imply that there is any connection with the Church. Aren’t most of them offshoots? I don’t understand the anger-it borders on almost hatred.
How wide spread are such feeling towards these groups?
While polygamy certainly existed in the Bible (especially among the Patriarchs) it never seemed to work out too well-it more or less complicated things (look at Ishmael-Israel is still dealing with his descendants!)

Jay says, “many things “complicate” life; just because polygamy appears to doesn’t necessarily mean that the OT prophets were wrong in practicing it.”
There is truth in your logic. Sometimes following Jesus Christ can “complicate” our lives- His call to holy living can cause others to avoid us and He calls us to deal with issues in our own lives we would rather avoid!
BUT-can you give me an example of a polygamous relationship in the OT that brought blessings?
Also: while polygamy is mentioned in relationship to the Patriarchs and Kings-I don’t remember any of the prophets of God praticing it in the OT (or at least it isn’t mentioned that I am aware of.)

Seth, one that comes to mind is Moses. He presented the nation of Israel with the Law of God. He also authored the Pentateuch under the inspiration of the Lord. The Lord called His Son, Jesus Christ, “a prophet like unto Moses.”

There are prophets in the OT that practice polygamy. I don’t have them off the top of my head, but I do recall reading about them and thinking, “wow polygamy was a lot more wide spread than I thought”. Abraham, Jacob and David are the most well known examples of polygamy, but not the only ones for sure. And there were prophets that practiced it (I always thought of Abraham and Jacob as prophets, but maybe I was mistaken).

I don’t really see the point in looking for blessings in polygamy. I’m not even sure if such blessings would be recorded in the Bible. All I know is that Abraham lived it and was never reproached by God for it. David was but that was only because he killed a man to take his wife. Given that the OT is full of immediate and drastic punishment for even minor offenses, I have to conclude that God was at the very least OK with polygamy.

The message I get from the Bible is that God was almost indifferent to the MODE of marriage. He always seemed primarily concerned with how people were treating each other within relationships rather than the formal structure of the relationships themselves.

In any event, I don’t think God Himself is even half as ideologically wedded to monogamy as we are. He seems neutral on the subject – more or less.

I know this site is for Mormons and Christians but as an outsider (I’m an atheist) I can’t resist commenting on this topic.

Solomon had over 700 wives according to the bible (not mentioning the extra Abishag & the Shunammite). I think polygamy was a norm and wasn’t considered a taboo. Basically, if you could afford more than one wife, then you had more than one wife – it was a prestige thing.

I can understand that some people think the artwork above is ‘creepy’ – as an outsider, it looks pretty cultish to me (but then, I get that impression from most religious art).

Knowing early Mormons taught that Jesus was a polygamist – and that some Mormons still practice polygamy, I think it is safe to assume that the artwork is portraying Jesus with his plurality of wives. Earlier, Rachal mentioned that 1) the picture had nothing to do with polygamy and 2) was “showing that Christ is our friend and is in the center of our lives. That christ listens to us young girls”. Perhaps you are correct about 2, but I don’t see how you can conclude that it isn’t depicting Jesus as a polygamist – considering Mormon history.

Anyway, putting all those matters aside, I can’t understand why anyone would want more than one partner – as if the nagging from one isn’t enough!! 🙂

But I have a hard time believing an artist like Del Parson would be trying to put in a sort of insurgent pro-polygamy message in his artwork. The guy is pretty-much a fixture of conventional Mormonism, and conventional Mormonism is almost as violently opposed to polygamy as any group in America.

Well, Del may secretly support polygamy. On the other hand, he could have added the pro-polygamy message without consciously intending to do so – subconsciously influenced by his Mormon culture/heritage. Then again, maybe outsiders like myself could be seeing what we want to see because of the original Mormons support of polygamy – perhaps we can’t get our heads around how they can support something like that originally, then later change to suit politics and popular culture. Kind of gives the message “let’s make it up as we go along”.

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made
one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that
I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as
long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage
and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery.
This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink,
for fear of being accused of this.
…
A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a
man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has
charged me with adultery. …
… I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear
witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.
… What a thing it is for a man to be accused of
committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only
find one.
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen
years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored
with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of
patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they
virtually kicked out of doors. (History of the Church, Volume 6, pages 410-411
May 26, 1844.)

If Joseph Smith had more than one wife, where are the decedents of those other relationships?

The truth is, Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Section 132 of the Utah Doctrines and Covenants (D&C), which condones polygamy, was invented after the death of Joseph Smith by apostates.

D&C 101:4 (1835 edition)
D&C 109:4 (1844 and 1846 editions)
MARRIAGE
4 … Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached
with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that
we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one
woman, but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again. …

History of the Church, Volume 3, pages 28-29
May 8, 1838
… also in the afternoon I answered the questions which
were frequently asked me, … as follows:
…
Seventh — “Do the Mormons believe in having more wives
than one?”
No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their
companion dies, they have a right to marry again. …

Brigham Young, who was the main founder of the modern day “Mormon Church,” was one of the most wicked persons that I have ever read about. I once had an old man, who is now dead, tell me that he thought that Brigham Young had committed the unpardonable sin. I didn’t understand what he meant at the time, but now I do, and I agree.

The “Mormon Church” has distorted history and scripture. The members of this church, and many others, have been deceived by this apostate church.

Do you really believe that? I’m not sure there are many “modern” LDS members or non-members for that matter that would agree with you on that one. The evidence to the contrary is undeniable. Most people agree that the quote you posted is an example of Joseph Smith lying to cover up his polygamy, which eventually was exposed and was the cause of much of the persecution the early church experienced (I understand there were other factors but polygamy was a major one).

If Joseph Smith had more than one wife, where are the decedents of those other relationships? The Brighamites have had plenty of time to conduct DNA testing. Anyone of them would be proud to have been a decedent of Joseph Smith, and would most likely brag about it.

I have found evidence that Joseph Smith may have has an affair with a young unmarried woman named Fanny Alger, but even that evidence if flimsy being based on a letter supposedly written by Oliver Cowdery to his brother. If authentic, that letter shows only that Oliver Cowdery believed that Joseph Smith had such an affair, but with no witness other than Oliver Cowdery himself.

Brigham Young, the main founder of the modern day “Mormon” church, was an apostate who lied and murdered to get his way. The following is an example of his character told by George Miller, who was Bishop of the church at the time of Joseph Smith’s death:

“…When we got to Winter Quarters (about the 28th January, 1846), I had presented to me a revelation, given through Brigham Young, in regard to the journeying of the saints west; Young intimated to me that a First Presidency would be organized.

I was greatly disgusted at the bad composition and folly of this revelation, as also the intimation that a First Presidency would be organized; that I was from this time determined to go with him no longer, and to look out a place where I might support my family, and remain until the true shepherd of God’s flock should show himself, to lead the church and kingdom of God. The trio, namely, Young, Kimball and Richards, sent up to Punka village E. T. Benson and others to teach the revelation received by Brigham Young, and assist in bringing me and part of my family to Winter Quarters or Council Bluffs, according to the decree of Brigham and his council.
I must confess that I was broken down in spirit on account of the usurpation of these arrogant Apostles, and their ppressive measures.
I made a computation of the number of miles that I had raveled on foot during the course of the winter, to satisfy the desires of these capricious men, and it amounted to seventeen hundred miles; and as my mind was much depressed, my physical force was also greatly abated,
and I really panted for a respite for a time from such needless toil, growing out of the jealousy of Brigham Young, lest I should lead away a body of the saints. He on one occasion prophesied that the President of the High Priests quorum would yet lead off a large body of the saints. He made the prophecy when I was not present. When it was told me I forthwith told my informant that I also would prophecy in my own name that President Young had prophesied a great lie in the name of the Lord; that really and truly I could have nothing to do with his corrupt rot-heap; and when I left the leadership that if any of them (the corrupt followers of Brigham) should follow me, I would shoot them. Those sayings of mine were currently retailed through the camp, and multiplied no doubt when returned to the ears of Brigham Young.
After I had been some time in Winter Quarters, I discovered that Young’s promise had not in any part been made good in having my supported out of the church revenue. The wages of the men composing the battalion enlisted to serve in the Mexican war, was sent for and obtained under the pretext of supporting their wives and children. The amount of money obtained was represented to me to be about forty thousand dollars, which was invested partly in dry goods and
groceries, and in supplying the quorum of the Twelve apostles and their huge families; and as there was much sickness in Winter Quarters, I was informed that many of the solders’ wives and children actually died for the want of common comforts of life; and when any of them got any of the means obtained expressly for them, they got it out of the stores of goods bought with their own money, and charged to them at high retail prices, at the rate of 25 to 100 per centrum, and many of them never got anything.
The men having no families sent back their wages also to support the solders’ wives, but was never appropriated as intended. Some of my acquaintances asked me why I did not put in for a share in the soldiers’ money. I told them that I would not eat, drink or wear the price of blood. All these sayings of mine were told Brigham Young. He came to me and asked me if I had said it; I told him that I had, and much more. He then said that such like apostasy had caused Joseph’ death. I told him not to presume to place himself on a parallel with Joseph–the contrast was as disproportioned as between the ox and toad. Their usurpations was insufferable, and none but fools would bear it.”

“And again, verily I say unto you, my servant George Miller is without guile; he may be trusted because of the integrity of his heart; and for the love which he has to my testimony I, the Lord, love him.” (Doctrine & Covenants Section 124:20.)

George Miller was Bishop to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the time of Joseph Smith’s death. Before his death in 1856 he wrote a series of letter to the Northern Islander newspaper. These letters, along with subject and names indexes (over 80 names) can be read online at http://www.geocities.com/zapzapho/gmi.html.

I haven’t posted anything about James J. Strang or the Strangites on this thread. But since Seith R. has mentioned the subject, I will post the following, which I know many will find interesting.

James J. Strang, Joseph Smith’s legal successor, had several wives. Before the federal govt. of the USA had him murdered in the summer of 1856, James wrote about the virtues of polygamy. Those who are interested, can read those writings at the following web address: http://members.aol.com/Strang7222/44.htm#POLYGAMY

Those who are not interested, don’t have to read anything I post. I couldn’t care less…

The letter you speak of is not the only evidence that Joseph was married to other women. Todd Compton documents Joseph’s marriages to other women quite extensively in his book In Sacred Lonliness. The information I have suggest there could be several thousand descendents of Joseph Smith today (from his polygamous wives) but there have only been 3 DNA tests that I know of. Many of these don’t even know they are Joseph’s descendents because they were not told. One mother did tell her daughter Josephine (Interesting choice of name for a girl) Rosetta Lyon that she was actually Joseph’s daughter. There is some controversy over whether she was a biological daughter or just spiritually sealed to Joseph (If you believe LDS apologists – Sylvia Sessions Lyon was married to another man at the time Joseph married her). However, her death bed confession to her daughter makes it clear that she was married to Joseph Smith, unless for some reason she is a lair.

On January 27, 1844 Sylvia Lyon was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.

If she was only a spiritual daughter, why then did her mother think she had to keep it a secret?

I believe (and I am a Mormon, but that isn’t the basis for this belief) that Jesus was almost certainly married, and was much more likely to be a polygamist than he was likely to be celibate.

For any Jewish man in 1st Century Palestine (except for maybe a leper) it would be scandalous to be in your 30s and unmarried. Let alone a man who is considered any sort of religious authority. You could not (and probably still can not) become a Rabbi as an unmarried man. And while Jesus being called rabbi may not have been in a formal sense, it is inconceivable that Christ’s enemies amongst the religious establishment wouldn’t have made light of the fact that here was a lifelong bachelor over 30 to detract from the belief that he could be a religious authority. Yet nowhere in his disputes with the Pharisees or Saducees recorded in the Gospels is this charge made, nor is it made in the centuries of early anti-Christian literature that was written for the next 300 or so years.

On other hand, polygamy was normal and perfectly acceptable in that time. It wouldn’t have been considered strange, abnormal, or even worth mentioning had it been the case. That said, there’s no evidence to really say either way. Unlike a lot of the OT polygamists, Christ’s story wasn’t centered on promises made for his posterity, so this wasn’t really relevant.

But as they say, a lack of evidence of a particular thing is not evidence against that thing or for that thing.

One of the stories in the bible is the marriage feast that Jesus made wine from the water. It is interesting to note that the bridegroom is responsible to provide the wine. This isn’t proof that he was married but it is noteworthy.

Jay,
Do you know if one of Josephine Rosetta Lyon’s descendants was one of the three people tested? Seems to me that her descendants were tested, and she was found not to have been related to Joseph Smith. I remember reading something about it, but can’t remember the details. Last I heard, there has been no positive DNA test that proves Joseph Smith had a child with someone other than Emma. I imagine if the day ever comes when a positive result is obtained, the counter-cult people and the anti-Mormons will be screaming it from the rooftops….I remember my old patriarch standing up in the pulpit preaching about this topic. About how all these women claimed to be the polygamous wives of Joseph Smith, and yet none of them ever produced a child, “and here Emma was getting pregnant all the time.” I must have heard that sermon a thousand times growing up. I don’t buy the argument about how there could be several thousand descendants of Joseph Smith only they weren’t told. We know who all the women are who said they were married to Joseph Smith–test these womens’ descendants. Then, if nobody tests positive, I will be inclined to believe that my old patriarch was right after all.

“Josephine Rosetta Lyon (daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon), is still under investigation after five years of scrutiny, he said. But Y chromosome evidence, used to determine paternal relationships from father to son, is not present for Lyon because she is female. The effort to determine Lyon’s parentage has cost more than $100,000 to date.”

There was another article I read that said tests were “inconclusive” when it came to Josephine Lyon’s relationship to Joseph Smith. All the others tested, four in all, were negative.

I remember my old patriarch standing up in the pulpit preaching about this topic. About how all these women claimed to be the polygamous wives of Joseph Smith, and yet none of them ever produced a child

Do you really think that all those women were lying? It seems hard to imagine.

I don’t buy the argument about how there could be several thousand descendants of Joseph Smith only they weren’t told.

I get this from Todd Compton’s book (minus the thousands part, I got confused with something else). It comes from a direct quote of one of Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives. She said (paraphrasing of course) there were children of Joseph from his other wives in Salt Lake but that they went by different names.

If you are from the CoC I can understand your desire to deny Joseph was polygamous, but if you are LDS (the Salt Lake variety) it has been largely accepted that Joseph was polygamous, though not spoken of or portrayed in any way.

Jay,
I’m not necessarily saying that the women were lying. I’m for doing the DNA tests on the descendants that we can find. I’m just saying that I think my old patriarch had a point. How can all these women claim they were Joseph’s wives (and for most, it seems that they want to claim that they slept with him, not the “spiritual” wife kind of thing) and yet there is no child!! Yes, some of them would have been infertile, but the whole bunch? It boggles the imagination.

I think it is a good point that they didn’t have any children that are known to the general public. A critic would argue that it was because he was too busy running from mobs and traveling to administer the Church.

It boggles the mind more that Joseph would marry these women and NOT have sex with them.

I think it is consistent with LDS teachings that Joseph could of married the women for only after this life. However, there seems to be a lot of information from the wives themselves that suggest this was not the case. Of course that’s only if you believe what some of them have said, it is circumstantial evidence since there are no known children from Joesph’s other wives. I think DNA evidence may very well clear up this confusion, but it is going to take a lot of work to track down the descendants and then to get them to agree to give their DNA for testing. I’m sure many of them are no longer Mormon and wouldn’t like the stigma that their family history would bring unnecessarily on them. What I don’t understand is why the critics of the LDS Church aren’t funding research into this issue. It seems that only Church friendly donors are funding it and some would argue that is why Josephine Lyon’s test was “inconclusive”. Granted I don’t know what genetic markers they are using to test for lineage, so the inconclusive result could very likely be valid.

Hi Jay, 🙂
To the critic who says that Joseph was too busy running from the mob and administering the church to impregnate even one of these 33-50 women (depending on who your source is, some anti-Mormons say he had 50 wives) then I say, how in the world did Emma manage to bear him seven children during the years of their marriage? I’m just not swallowing this critic’s line of thinking. Emma bore him SEVEN children, notwithstanding all the separations they had to endure (Liberty Jail, etc) These critics want me to believe that Emma carried pregnancies to term six times (one set of twins) and none of these 33-50 women even managed to produce ONE single child! No way.
But there is also one other reason behind my opinion. Emma is much revered in my faith tradition, and Emma went to her grave saying that there were no other wives. Now, of course everyone will say that she had her own reasons for saying this, but I remember that she also went to her grave standing up for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. It seems there are some who are perfectly happy to accept her affirmation of the Book of Mormon, but who don’t want to accept what she had to say about Joseph and polygamy.
I agree with you that it’s puzzling why there isn’t more research by critics of the Church into this issue. Perhaps they feel that the circumstantial evidence is enough, and they shouldn’t have to “prove” anything. However, I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and a positive DNA test is the only thing that will convince me. As far as Josephine Lyon’s DNA test being funded by Church friendly donors, I don’t believe that had anything to do with the “inconclusive” result. We are talking about anywhere from 33-50 women, you show me one positive result. Same thing with ex-members who don’t want the publicity. There has got to be one descendant who can test positive and settle this issue. If it’s true that Joseph Smith really did practice polygamy, then it will only be a matter of time until a positive result is found.

As I have demonstrated, Joseph Smith denied having more than one wife. The Brighamites, and other anti-Mormons, are saying that Joseph Smith lied.

Polygamy is not a sin. Lying, which includes bearing false witness against someone who has been dead for over 150 years, is a sin. Jesus Christ taught his followers to obey his commandments. Those who obey Jesus Christ, who was/is God, are Christians. Those who don’t obey his commandments, are not followers of Jesus Christ.

Could someone please explain to me why “Christians” say Joseph Smith was a polygamist when they don’t have any proof that he was? Why do these “Christians” run the risk of committing sin by stating that Joseph Smith was a polygamist? Why don’t they just mind their own business and stop meddling in other peoples affairs?

Again I ask, if Joseph Smith had more than one wife, where are the decedents of those relationships? By now, there must be hundreds, if not thousands who could claim Joseph Smith as their relatives.

Joseph Smith stated that it was the principle of polygamy that crucified Jesus and would cause the people to crucify modern day Prophets.

from the polygamy section of the book “Joseph Smith & the Restoration-A History of the Church to 1846” by Ivan J. Barrett (BYU Press)

“During the summer of 1840 an angel of the Lord confronted the Prophet and commanded him, in the name of the Lord, to establish the principle of plural marriage, “so long concealed from the knowledge of the Saints and of the world.” Joseph Smith well knew that the introduction of this practice would cost him his life.”………………
Joseph Smith stated: “Many men will say, I will never forsake you, but will stand by you at all times. But the moment you teach them some of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, that are retained in the heavens, and are to be revealed to the children of men when they are prepared for them, they will be the first to stone you and put you to death. IT WAS THIS PRINCIPLE THAT CRUCIFIED THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, and will cause the people to KILL THE PROPHETS IN THIS GENERATION.”

Seven, you are totally misinterpreting this quote. He said that they stoned the prophets and crucified Jesus for revealing some of the mysteries that have been concealed. that is the “Principle” he is referring to. Which seems true by the accounts of the Gospels. i.e. the Pharisees saw that Jesus’ conception of the Messiah was heretical, and especially in Mark, Jesus passion and his status was considered a mystery.

I agree that polygamy was a big focus of the church for about 60 years, I think partly because it was so radical. I think the strong rhetoric was natural.

I think its as conceivable that Jesus practiced polygamy as most of the other stuff that people say about him. It was a common practice then (and now) in that part of the world. But what would be the problem if he did?

But seriously Seven, its hard to see the scandal hear if you abandon your traditional notions of romance. It seems that Joseph was all about shaking up traditional notions of Religion, Family and Society. The institution of polygamy was one radical step away from western romantic love.

Unless you are contending that that the western idea romantic love is Gods “only true way” I think you are just being closed minded.

I am only quoting how the author interpreted the sermon-you need to look at the context of what was going on at that time period. What revealed mystery of heaven would cause such an uproar? What was happening at the time he made the speech? Joseph was preaching and practicing polygamy secretly and trying to prepare the saints to live the principle, while also fighting those who were opposing it. If you disagree with what Joseph was inferring, that’s cool. I can see why you interpret it as ONLY a general reference to all the mysteries of heaven. I see it referring to both.

We have several quotes from past Prophets/apostles on Jesus practicing plural marriage. That quote by Joseph Smith parallels exactly what they taught as well.
So we have several apostles and Prophets who have stated Jesus was a polygamist and that plural marriage is the highest PRINCIPLE of the gospel and as we know Joseph was the one to prepare them in living it. Don’t you think Joseph would have been the one to tell them if God or Jesus practiced this highest principle of the gospel?

“We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born… We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable Wives to be married.” The Seer, p. 172, Orson Pratt

When Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if this meant that Christ had children, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!” (Letter to J. Ricks Smith, dated March 17, 1963)

“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.” Journal of Discourses 4:259, Orson Hyde

“There are those in this audience who are descendants of the Lord’s Twelve Apostles-and, shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Savior himself. His seed is represented in the body of these men.”
– First Presidency Memeber and Apostle George Q. Cannon, Solemn Assembly in the Salt Lake Temple, July 2, 1899, Meeting Notes Utah State Historical Society, p. 376.

“Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the ‘grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.’ After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.'”
– The Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency, Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346

As I have already proven, Joseph Smith denied having more than one wife. Polygamy was not allowed by any member of the church while Joseph Smith was alive. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 was added after the death of Joseph Smith. The Brighamites have distorted church history and scripture. Any serious student of church history and scripture can see this.

A lot of that rhetoric was developed after Joseph’s time, and after polygamy had become firmly entrenched. Polygamy was not the only “mystery” Joseph was trying to present to the people. The eternal progression of man and God would be another. Continuing revelation. The entire temple ceremony. The sacred bonds of family…

Of course, polygamy wove into these other themes. But there was more to it than that.

Proven to anyone who can comprehend the English language and has an ear for truth. I will try again. This time I will try to present it for those who have a hard time understanding the English language. There is no hope for those who have no ear for truth.

Joseph Smith denied having more than on wife:

History of the Church, Volume 3, pages 28-29
May 8, 1838
… also in the afternoon I answered the questions which
were frequently asked me, … as follows:
…
Seventh — “Do the Mormons believe in having more wives
than one?”
No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their
companion dies, they have a right to marry again. …

Joseph and Hyrum Smith were murdered on July 27, 1844.

Joseph Smith denied having more than one wife. On May 26, 1844 he published the following:

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made
one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that
I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as
long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage
and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery.
This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink,
for fear of being accused of this.
…
A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a
man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has
charged me with adultery. …
… I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear
witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.
… What a thing it is for a man to be accused of
committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only
find one.
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen
years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored
with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of
patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they
virtually kicked out of doors. (History of the Church, Volume 6, pages 410-411
May 26, 1844.)

Doctrine and Covenants section 132 was published by the Brighamites after the death of Joseph Smith. Doctrine and Covenants section 132 was not a revelation give through Joseph Smith.

Doctrine and Covenants section 132, which condones polygamy, is contrary to previous editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published by the church:

D&C 101:4 (1835 edition)
D&C 109:4 (1844 and 1846 editions)
MARRIAGE
4 … Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached
with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that
we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one
woman, but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again. …

Again I ask, if Joseph Smith had more than one wife, where are the decedents of those relationships? By now, there must be hundreds, if not thousands who could claim Joseph Smith as their relatives. That, by it self, should be proof enough for anyone who has any common sense. I mean…daaaaaa…

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables.

You know why? Because I can tell you that I’m a hairy man named Fred. I’m not.

People lie. Joseph Smith had a lot of reasons to lie about practicing polygamy.

Where are the decedents? Well, there are a few options. 1. As some of the women that he married had other husbands, any pregnancies might have been attributed to the other husband and not to Joseph Smith. 2. Women might have been told that, for the safety of their children, that they shouldn’t reveal that JS was the father. 3. He may not have consummated all of his marriages.

Also, many people claim that JS DID have children from these wives. The only time I’ve ever heard anyone claim otherwise is when you have done it.

How about we all agree to drop the issue? I mean, there’s no reason to continue the discussion except to humor Rick, which is funny to a point, but I think he’s dominating like four different threads right now.

I really think Rick needs to gety his own blog. It’s free, Rick. Sign up and give us all a break.

1) I proved that up until his death Joseph Smith denied having more than on wife.

2) The 1835, 1844, and 1846 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants didn’t contain section 132.

3) The 1835, 1844, and 1846 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants forbid polygamy for anyone in the church.

4) On another thread I proved that the Brighamite edition of Doctrine and Covenants section 132 is contrary to the Book of Mormon:

“Section 132 of Brighamite’s D&C contradicts the Book of Mormon, which says that David’s polygamy was “wicked” and “abominable.” Section 132 states that David did not sin in any of those things:
Jacob 1:15
15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under
the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their
hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices,
such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and
concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 2:24
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and
concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the
Lord.
D&C 132:39
39. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me,
by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the
prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of
these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah
and his wife; …

Besides not being able to comprehend the English language, and not having an ear for truth, what have you proven?

Look everybody, Rick’s a broken record and he’s getting belligerent now. It’s been fun and wacky having the Stranginte around, but all good things come to an end. I’m going to simply stop responding to Rick, and I hope others will do the same.

I realize that most use their religion to help them get through this life. I want to reach those who are humble followers of Jesus Christ, not to convince those who already think they know.

2 Nephi 28
[14] They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

rick you really have a lot of valuable contributions to make to the world of religious discussions. You really should set up your own blog here at WordPress.com. Your thoughts are only getting lost here in my comments section.

I think the general problem we are having with you is not that we disagree with your position, but in the way you are presenting yourself.

I apologize for my previous sarcasm, but you are really making yourself out to be tone deaf to what your audience may think about you and your message.

Here are some problems that many of us have with your comments.

1. You put too many quotes in your posts. – The laundry lists of scriptural references and full text aren’t really helpful. I never read more than one and I doubt anybody else does, I think you are far better off simply making the reference without the full text of the scripture. Its just as easy People lose interest when you have too many and it makes you look a bit preachy, fanatical or pedantic, i.e. when having a conversation with a friend you would not stop and read all of the scriptures you want to reference, nobody would listen to all of that, try to consider the comments to blogs as the same type of conversation.

2. You repeat the same position over and over again.- Repeating your arguments over and over again does not make them more convincing. You have to assume that most of us have considered them and either rejected or accepted them. When tempted to bring up some subject that you really like, e.g. how bad you think Brigham Young was, or how the history of Joseph Smith’s polygamy is a Utah LDS conspiracy, you are far better off simply linking to your previous comments and leaving it at that. It is incredibly annoying to the readers of this blog to see the same thing over and over again. We simply tune out.

3. You divert the topic of discussion off of the topic of the original post. – By bringing up the full arguments against the “Brighamites” and Joseph Smith’s polygamy over and over again, especially when the topic of conversation is whether Evangelicals need to apologize to Mormons or whether Utah LDS believe that Jesus was a polygamist, or any number of other conversations, it turns people off and makes us think you have nothing to contribute to the actual discussion but just want to harp on your pet issues.

I know it may be irritating that we don’t “see the light” based on your arguments but continuing to pursue them all the time really turns you into a nuisance rather than somebody we are willing to listen to. If you want to be an effective teacher of the truth you need to be aware of how your audience reacts to the way you are presenting. Right now you have lost us a long time ago.

Seriously Rick, I am sure you have something to contribute other than these arguments that few, if any, of us accept regarding Joseph Smith and polygamy. If you concentrate on making comments specific to the posts you will have much more of an impact and won’t turn everybody off.

In reference back to the original painting of what appears to depict Jesus and four women. It strongly suggests to me that the general and simple composition of this work is ment to show Jesus surrounded in a perfect circle of wives. In clockwise order, from left to right, the first and oldest looking wife stands as a pillar of strength and support, a gentle and knowing expression of admiration, with her hand gently yet firmly upon His right shoulder. Next in order is the second oldest looking wife who joyfully and lovingly positions herself in close and at His level, in a perfect expression of unity. Then there are the two younger wives who appear to be in a position of being tought, the youngest having obtained what is most likely roses (which are very special symbolically). There is a rose for each of the four wives, three yellow and one red. Jesus has received the first rose and begins to present each as he gives His characteristic teachings on what would be a special occasion. The youngest wife completes the circle.

Using paintings to convey messages is called visual rhetoric. Visual rhetoric has been used by those in power for thousands of years to convey messages to the uneducated masses. This painting is called religious rhetoric. Religious rhetoric has been used successfully by the Catholic Church to keep the uneducated under control, and the clergy in power. Now it is being used by the “Mormon Church” to do the same. Those who can comprehend the written word understand that there is nothing in the scriptures that states that Jesus Christ was a polygamist.

Few people in the LDS church affirm that Jesus was a polygamist, it is not part of the standard teaching and certainly would not be considered Church Doctrine. It strains credulity to believe that the artist here was trying to send that message. I know some few LDS who know of the teaching that Jesus was married, and even fewer that he was a polygamist, but nobody I know thinks that it is a big deal one way or another.

Although Brigham Young and others did teach that Jesus was a polygamist, it simply is not part of Modern LDS teaching. It seems to be part of the previous rhetoric that was used to defend polygamy in a climate where the church was ostracized for this practice. There are dozens of opinions and teaching of Brigham Young (and Joseph Smith for that matter) that are either rejected or considered irrelevant by most LDS today. However, this is completely consistent with the general principles of the religion, i.e. that prophets (and scripture) are not infalliable, very often express human opinon rather than divine truth, and that the whole truth is unfolding over time through revelation and inspiration through generations.

Whether Jesus was a polygamist or not, or whether he was married at all, is a fact that has been lost to us, as have most of the facts surrounding the details of Jesus’ life. We simply don’t have enough information to know one way or another. We do know that polygamy was practiced by first century Jews and that it was uncommon for adult Jews to remain unmarried but that’s about it.

The scriptures are completely silent on the question, as they are on any number of questions regarding Jesus. Which is understandable since the Gospels are clearly designed to briefly tell a particular message about a very short period of Jesus life, rather than be a biography of the man. We have no first hand accounts of Jesus.

However, again, what would it matter if Jesus was a polygamist. I think that in principle, polygamy in itself only offends western romantic notions of marriage, not the teachings of Jesus. (Certainly, as practiced, it can and has been an oppressive institution, but I generally think that is because it has been marginalized and criminalized rather than being accepted and included in the general legal and social fabric of modern society)

I still have yet to hear a real strong religious or moral argument against consensual polygamy. I think that more than anything we are just prejudiced against it because of the social taboos we have grown up with. Because of these polygamy becomes something that Mormons downplay and anti-Mormons focus on just to avoid the prejudice.

Mormon 9:9-10
9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today,
and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither
shadow of changing?
10 And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not God of miracles.

“And again, the duty of the President of the office of the high priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses. Behold here is wisdom–yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator and a prophet –having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.”107:91-92.

Of all those who claimed to have been Joseph Smith’s successor, only James J. Strang claimed to have been a seer, a revelator, a translator and a prophet having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church. The Brighamites have rejected this miracle. There god(s) isn’t the same as the God of Abraham.

Personally, I think monogamy is a corrupt form of marriage, and that polygamy would be better for society, but that is not what Joseph Smith taught or practiced.

Polygamy is what most people think of when they think of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. That is because the Brighamites have falsified history and scripture to make it appear that Joseph Smith taught and practiced an extremely corrupt and perverted form of marriage. This has caused many to reject the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

There is not any evidence that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, other than from enemies of the church or from perjury by people who were under the control of Brigham Young.

Of all the false accusations made against Joseph Smith, the claims that he married women who were already married to another men are the most absurd.

The accusations come in part from testimony submitted by elderly women during the lawsuit for ownership of the Temple lot in Independence, Missouri. At that time Brigham Young was desperately trying to prove that his cult was the legal successor of the church organized by Joseph Smith, so he tried to prove that Joseph Smith started the polygamy. The women were bribed to submit false affidavits that they
had been married to Joseph Smith. Brigham Young probably promised a widow’s pension to any woman who would say that she had been one of Joseph Smith’s wives.

In their careless effort to find witnesses who were willing to perjure themselves, the Brighamites ignored the problem of women who had already been married at the time that the alleged marriages to Joseph Smith took place. Thereby, making it seem that Joseph Smith was guilty of adultery.

Again, it is only my personal opnion that monogamy is a corrupt form of marriage, but I would have to admit that statement is not scripturally sound:

“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none:
For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms is an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of Hosts.” (Jacob 2:27-28.)

Note, that in today’s society, a concubine would be called a “girlfriend.” Also note that the above is only referring to a group of people.

I know of many men in today’s society who long for a good woman. If polyandry was acceptable, they would all be married to me. 😛

Seriously, your response doesn’t make sense. Is it because you’re a male that you think that it is more palatable for a man to have multiple women? You already stated that there is no scriptural basis for polygamy or polyandry, and implied that that is why you would believe in one or the other, but yet you think that monogamy is corrupt.

as a member of the LDS church or mormon, i find the idea that this picture represents christ as a polygamous outrageous and disturbing. it grieves me to think that people would actually be looking to find that in a painting. it is even more so saddening because this happens to be one of my favorite pictures. when i see this picture i see christ with some young women,he appears to be talking with them or in my opinion teaching them. they are not just any young women, they are young women clothed in white they are pure, chaste , and virtuous. since a rose is a flower and could thus be linked to de-flowerment i would further more affirm this is what he is teaching them. to gaurd their chastity which is most precious in the sight of the lord. further more i believe or imagine rather that the belts or bands about their waste signify one of seven values of young women in the church; faith, divine nature, individual worth, choice and accountability, good works, and integrity.

You people are looking into this way too much.
The LDS (Mormon) church does NOT teach that Jesus was a polygamist.
If you don’t believe me, maybe you should research some reliable source and find out for yourself, rather than believe what you read on some random internet site.
<3333

Brigham Young most certainly taught that Jesus was a polygamist, and that’s why he was crucified by the Romans. It’s in the Journal of Discourses. I didn’t get this from an “unreliable” internet site. My mother has an old print copy of the JoD, and I’ve read it in there myself.

Here’s what I could find in the Journal of Discourses (volume 13, page 309). This may be what Kullervo is referring to:

Said he [Jesus], when talking to his disciples: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and, “I and my Father are one.” The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children; but at any rate they filled the Temple, and how many there were who could not get into the Temple I cannot say.

This is not a picture of Jesus and His wives but a picture of Jesus teaching the young women of the church. As a member of the church I find if comforting that He is my Savior and knows me personally. I believe that this is the feeling being portrayed in this piece of artwork. I have been a member of the church for twenty years and have never heard anything about Brigham Young teaching that Jesus was a polygamist. In regards to Jesus being married there is no definitive answer from the church on this, just speculation by members. For any other questions go to lds.org or mormon.org these websites are both endorsed by the church itself and if you are looking for the actual answers from the church this is the best place to look

Thanks for the Sunday school answers Nicole. We all know that if you haven’t heard it sitting in the pews, it must not be true. If I were to go to lds.org for answers I’d find that Joseph Smith was not even a polygamist.

Why does a person twist something into something else? There are many pictures of Jesus with men and we know He is administering. There are many pictures of Jesus with children and we know He is showing love to them. Why is it that we cannot assume that Jesus is showing His love to women the same way we love our siblings? I love my mom, but I am not a lesbian. I love my dad, but I have only had a parent child relationship with him. I love my brothers, sisters, nephews (I don’t have any nieces yet), cousins, grandparent, and friends, but when we take an extended family picture no one automatically assumes that any incest occurs (and none does if you are wondering) within our extended family since we are family. I believe the artist is only attempting to show that Jesus loves everyone and not just men and children since no one really criticizes any pictures of Him otherwise. Now I ask, Why do some feel the need to twist simple truths?

First, this is seriously the thread that Will. Not. Die. (I say as I perpetuate the problem…)

Second, Twist, I wondered if maybe that was the case, that things were being twisted. But looking at the picture again… it does not look like the intentions of the women in this picture are just to be administered to. They are being much to physical.

If you saw a picture of a family where people did look all lovingly and inappropriately placed, you probably would question. If you see a picture of a man with a harem of women draped around him, you can’t help but wonder what else is going on.

I doubt it was the intention of the artist. It’s just a crappy painting.

July 22, 1883 – Wilford Woodruff writes in his journal: “[July] 22 Sunday I Attended the Sabbath School Conference …. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consister. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug[h] Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married , , ,”

Dec 16, 1900 – Second counselor Joseph F. Smith tells Mormons of St. Johns, Arizona, that Jesus was married to the Mary who anointed his feet.

Mar 17, 1963 – A Mormon writes to Joseph Fielding Smith: “In the Temple ceremony we are told that only through Temple marriage can we receive the highest degree of exaltation and dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Christ came here to set us the example and, therefore, we believe that he must have been married. Are we right?” Joseph Fielding Smith replies with a signed, hand-written note, “Yes! But do no preach it! The Savior advised us not to cast pearls before swine!”

“Mar 17, 1963 – A Mormon writes to Joseph Fielding Smith: “In the Temple ceremony we are told that only through Temple marriage can we receive the highest degree of exaltation and dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ…”

“Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ”? Who is this “Heavenly Father” deity? This is another example of the false doctrine the Brighamite false prophet/presidents have taught. Not only is this teaching of more than one god in violation of the first commandment which states “…thou shalt have no other gods before thee…” it is contrary to the following scripture that clearly state that Jesus Christ is God:

Jesus was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
1 Nephi 19:10.
Christ was the God of the Nephites, 2 Nephi 1:10,
Moroni 8:7-8.
Jesus is the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel,
2 Nephi 6:8-9.
Jesus is God, the great Creator, 2 Nephi 9:5.
Jesus created the heavens and the earth, 3 Nephi 9:15.
There is a God, and he is Christ, 2 Nephi 11:6-7.
Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, 2 Nephi 26:12-13.
Jesus Christ is the Lord Omnipotent, who came down from
heaven, Mosiah 3:5-8,17-18.
Christ is the Lord God Omnipotent, who created all things,
Mosiah 5:15.
Jesus is God himself, Mosiah 13:34, 15:1, Alma 42:15,
3 Nephi 11:14, Ether 3:18.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God,
2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:2-5, Alma 11:44, 3 Nephi 11:27,
Mormon 7:7.
Christ is God, the Father of all things, Mosiah 7:27.
Jesus is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth,
Mosiah 15:4, 16:15, Alma 11:38-39, Ether 4:7,12.
Jesus is God, D&C 6:2,21,37, 11:2,28, 14:2,9.
Jesus is our God, D&C 17:9, 18:47, 27:1, 38:1.
Jesus is the Great I AM, D&C 29:1, 38:1, 39:1.
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite
and eternal, D&C 20:28.

Do not be deceived by these Brighamite apostates. The Book of Mormon is true. Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God/Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith Jr. did not practice polygamy, nor did he ever teach that Jesus Christ was a polygamist.

Not sure why anyone cares if this thread keeps coming to life but I thought I would offer my opinion….

Part of the problem I see with the OP is that it asks a very provocative question with nothing to back it up. So a Chapel Mormon stumbles on this post and is shocked that anyone could think such a thing. (totally in the dark that their revered Prophets taught and firmly believed Jesus practiced polygamy)

It would really help to give all the statements by LDS leaders that taught Jesus was a polygamist in the OP. I left several General Conference statements from the 19th century in a comment I made and I believe some others did as well.

That’s my point. If the OP addressed the reasons this picture could be depicting a polygamist Jesus [teachings by LDS leaders], then LDS who stumble upon it would have to prove the teachings false in their comments instead of getting offended by something they are ignorant of. It’s obvious they aren’t reading the comments.

RIDICULOUS jesus is clearly just preaching the word of god to these women if your going to be shallow and presume he has intimate relations over a picture than when you see him wit men than tou should think hes gay or when with children hes a peadofile…..is that right DIDNT THINK SO

Yeah, if only for the sake of honesty you should put an UPDATE on the main post saying you’ve changed your mind. I mean, if it was an honest question in the first place surely all these comments have convinced you that no one has ever (until your post) implied that this picture had something to do with polygamy. You can use it as a springboard for this topic, but neither the painter nor the LDS church intended it to be used for such.

Met Del Parson once. Good guy, very down to earth despite his ubiquitous paintings on the walls of many Christian churches.

Tim wrote: “…Joseph Smith began the practice by taking his first polygamous wife in 1833 (a 16 year old girl)…” (see updated disclaimer)

Can someone please explain how an alleged affair between Joseph Smith Jr. and Fanny Alger (the 16 year old girl)…” was polygamy?

There is intensive ongoing DNA testing is being done to find decedents of Joseph Smith Jr. Many connections have been found through his wife, Emma. No DNA evidence has yet to be found through any of his alleged polygamous wives, or Fanny Alger, that connect Joseph Smith Jr. (see article published November 10, 2007 by Deseret News http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html)

Again, Joseph Smith Jr. did not practice polygamy. Those who say that he did are baring false witness against someone who has been dead for over 150 years; they are saying that Joseph Smith Jr was a lying and was guilty of adultery.

There are quite a few of things Joseph Smith Jr. taught as a man which I disagree with, and even more things I disagree with that James J. Strang (Joseph’s legal successor) taught as a man. Its called independent thought, something most in this day and age are void of.

For those few independent thinking open minded people who are interested in the subject of polygamy, there is about ten pages devoted to virtues polygamy in the 1856 edition of the Book of the Law of the Lord, which was published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at the following web address: http://zapzapho.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/hello-world/#comment-3

Most people do not understand what Jesus Christ taught about marriage. So I post the following so that there may be a better understanding:

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saying for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit ADULTERY: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth ADULTERY.” ( Matthew 5:31-32.)
“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth ADULTERY against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth ADULTERY.” (Mark 10:12.)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit ADULTERY; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth ADULTERY.” (3 Nephi 12:32.)
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor ADULATORS, nor effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind.” (1 Corinthians 6:9.)

“…Aside from the quickie-divorce mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than four Bible Belt states: Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma…According to state estimates, three-fourths of weddings take place in churches….Nationally, there were about 4.2 divorces for every thousand people in 1998, according to federal figures for 1998. The rate was 8.5 per thousand in Nevada, 6.4 in Tennessee, 6.1 in Arkansas, 6.0 in Alabama and Oklahoma, but less than 3.0 in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Your…Why so many divorces in the
Bible Belt? Experts cite low house-hold incomes (Oklahoma ranks 46th and Arkansas 47th) and a tendency for couples to marry at a younger age than in many other states. Others suggest that religion plays a role, although opinions differ on exactly how…” (Extracted from the Kansas City Star Friday, November 12, 1999.)

The entire point of the picture is to show how great women are in the sight of the Savior. The way women are showed in this day, belittles them, making us practically worthless. This picture is to show how Christ and Heavenly Father think differently.

Good old Mo’ polygamy. Being married to a Mormon, sometimes people ask me what I would do if the church began practicing polygamy again and my husband were commanded to practice it. And my answer is simple: my husband is free to take more wives just so long as I’m free to take more husbands.

In which case I’ll be happy to take Jason Statham as my second husband, Hugh Jackman as my third, Little Women Christian Bale as my fourth, and Reign of Fire Christian Bale as my fifth.

(Bonus points if you know what comic book I just referenced)

I really think Mormons were onto something with early Nauvoo polyandry.

Joseph Smith Jr. wasn’t a polygamist. Joseph Smith Jr. spoke and wrote out against polygamy. Before the death of Joseph Smith Jr. any member who was a polygamist was excommunicated from the church.

Section 132 of the Utah edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which condones the practice of polygamy, was added after the death of Joseph Smith Jr. It is a bogus revelation most likely written by Brigham Young to justify his involvement in polygamy.

Polyandry is the marriage between one woman and more than one man, which, according to scriptures, is adultery.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “…Being married to a Mormon, sometimes people ask me what I would do if the church began practicing polygamy again and my husband were commanded to practice it. And my answer is simple: my husband is free to take more wives just so long as I’m free to take more husbands.”

What Bridget Jack Meyers was referring to wasn’t polygamy or polyandry it is voyeurism, which, according to scriptures, is adultery.

I haven’t read anything about polyandry being practiced by the Mormons in Nauvoo before Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered (June 27, 1844). Polyandry wasn’t even an issue.

Most people connect Mormons to the Brighamite church/cult, but there are other Mormons who aren’t connected to the Brighamite church/cult. This distinction was widely known shortly after the death of Joseph Smith Jr. I will leave you with examples extracted from newspapers of that era to prove my point(s):

A new Prophet, has arisen in Wisconsin, who it is said, is making considerable inroads into the church at Nauvoo. He has found a new set of plates, which he is translating and which according to his own showing, proves, incontestably that he is the rightful successor to the Prophet Joe. Many of the Nauvoo Saints seem to believe in his mission. This new prophet opposes the emigration to Oregon. (Warsaw Signal Warsaw, Ill. Dec. 31, 1845.)

We learn that on Monday last a very serious row occurred in Nauvoo, between the followers of the Twelve and those of the Wisconsin Prophet.
As our readers are already informed, the new Prophet has made considerable inroads into the Church at Nauvoo. Lately he obtained a new Revelation in relation to the succession, and sent some Messengers to the Holy City to read it to the people. This they attempted on Monday last, but were surrounded by a mob who attempted to drive them from the city–Whereupon a row ensued, in which clubs were used freely. The Twelveites gained the victory and drove their opponents from the ground. (Burlington Hawkeye Burlington, Ia. Feb. 12, 1846.)

Quite a schism exists among them now in consequence of the new Prophet Strang, who with his friends are trying to deter them from going on the expedition [to the desert], but to join his standard and go to Wisconsin. (Daily New Era St. Louis, Mo. Feb. 18, 1846.)

The Strang-ites are making great headway in Nauvoo. It is estimated that they will start nearly as large a company for Wisconsin, in May, as the twelve-ites will for California. (St. Louis, Mo. American St. Louis, Mo. Mar. 21, 1846.)

Mrs. Lucy Smith’s Testimony. [Joseph Smith’s mother]

“Nauvoo, May 11, 1846.

“My Dear Son-For so I must call you; as the church has passed through much affection, and it pains my heart that it should suffer more. The Twelve (Brighamites) have abused my son William, and trampled upon my children, and have also treated me with contempt. Now mark it, these men are not right. God has not sent them to lead this kingdom. I am satisfied that Joseph appointed James J. Strang. It is verily so. Now, Brother Reuben, I exhort you for the love you have for the truth, to hear my voice, and warn the saints concerning these things, and your reward shall be doubled in the heavenly world. This from your mother, Lucy Smith,
“Mother in Israel.”

“This is to certify that we, the undersigned. members of the Smith family, fully accord with the sentiments expressed above.

And no, I’ve never obtained sexual gratification from thinking about any of the men I listed, so I’m not even guilty of voyeurism let alone mental adultery. I’d suggest hopping off your soapbox and not judging other people, because you suck at it.

I haven’t read anything about polyandry being practiced by the Mormons in Nauvoo before Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered (June 27, 1844). Polyandry wasn’t even an issue.

Then you haven’t read the work of credible, professional historians like Todd Compton.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “And no, I’ve never obtained sexual gratification from thinking about any of the men I listed, so I’m not even guilty of voyeurism let alone mental adultery. I’d suggest hopping off your soapbox and not judging other people, because you suck at it.”

I didn’t accuse you of anything, nor was I being judgmental towards you in the least. Perhaps you should reread what I posted. Try reading it slowly, and try to comprehend what you are reading.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “Then you haven’t read the work of credible, professional historians like Todd Compton.”

Post what here what Todd Compton has written about the subject of polyandry by the Mormons prior to the death of Joseph Smith Jr. (June 27, 1844), and we will see how credible of a historian he is.

“I didn’t accuse you of anything, nor was I being judgmental towards you in the least. Perhaps you should reread what I posted. Try reading it slowly, and try to comprehend what you are reading.”

Or maybe next time you accuse someone of voyeurism and adultery, you should try writing it slowly and comprehending what your are writing.

“Post what here what Todd Compton has written about the subject of polyandry by the Mormons prior to the death of Joseph Smith Jr. (June 27, 1844), and we will see how credible of a historian he is.”

So you’re saying you haven’t read Compton’s work? I don’t mean to avoid your request, but Compton dedicates 11 chapters to the biographies of women who had polyandrous marriages in Nauvoo, which would take me quite a while to type. And besides, In Sacred in Loneliness is a major work in the field of LDS history. Any “serious student of church history” (your words above) would at least be familiar with his work.

And by the way, can you give me just the names of some professional historians who think Joseph Smith, Jr. didn’t practice polygamy (let alone polyandry)? I’d love to look up for myself what they have written and what their peers thought of their work.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “Or maybe next time you accuse someone of voyeurism and adultery, you should try writing it slowly and comprehending what your are writing.”

Again, I didn’t accuse you voyeurism and adultery. Anyone who can comprehend the English language can see that.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “And by the way, can you give me just the names of some professional historians who think Joseph Smith, Jr. didn’t practice polygamy (let alone polyandry)? I’d love to look up for myself what they have written and what their peers thought of their work.”

Joseph Smith Jr. wasn’t a professional historian, but I will post what he wrote just about a month before he was murdered:

May 26, 1844:

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made
one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that
I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as
long as I can.
This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage
and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery.
This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink,
for fear of being accused of this.
…
A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a
man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has
charged me with adultery. …
… I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear
witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.
… What a thing it is for a man to be accused of
committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only
find one.
I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen
years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored
with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of
patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they
virtually kicked out of doors. (History of the Church, Volume 6, pages 410-411.)

Are you saying Joseph Smith Jr. was lying? If so, where are the decedents of those polygamous relationships? Where is the DNA evidence? Or are you saying that those who compiled the History of the Church volume 6 weren’t professional historians? Or perhaps you are saying that those who compiled the History of the Church volume 6 were distorting church history?

RH: Again, I didn’t accuse you voyeurism and adultery. Anyone who can comprehend the English language can see that.

I’m beginning to think it’s your own comprehension of English language that’s at fault (and Kullervo seems to agree). In any case, next time, learn to take a joke.

Joseph Smith Jr. wasn’t a professional historian, but I will post what he wrote just about a month before he was murdered:

So are you admitting that you know of no professional historians who think Joseph Smith, Jr., was not a polygamist? I certainly don’t know of any. Even relatively impartial never-Mormon historians like Jan Shipps and Lawrence Foster agree that he practiced polygamy.

Are you saying Joseph Smith Jr. was lying?

Yes. Joseph Smith, Jr. lied about his polygamous practices often, and quite flagrantly. I know of no modern historians who think otherwise.

If so, where are the decedents of those polygamous relationships? Where is the DNA evidence?

Hasn’t this angle already been covered by other commentators? There are a lot of possible reasons why we don’t know of any descendants of Joseph Smith from his polygamous wives:

1) Even the most hostile critics will usually concede that he didn’t have sex with all of them, and he may not have had sex with them often due to the secretive nature of the practice and his own activities elsewhere.
2) The children may have died off from pioneer hardships or from miscarriages, stillbirths, etc. For example, Compton records at length an incident where an angry Emma Smith threw a pregnant Eliza Snow down the stairs, causing her to miscarry.
3) The children may have been considered the sons and daughters of the other husbands where the polyandrous wives were concerned.
4) Only 4 DNA studies have been conducted. DNA studies are expensive and plenty of these descendants are no longer Mormons of any kind and don’t want to be bothered. So we’re far from proving Smith via DNA that Smith wasn’t a polygamist.

I believe it was Brodie who suggested that Smith had abortions performed to cover up the evidence where his otherwise single wives were concerned, but even I find that far-fetched.

Or are you saying that those who compiled the History of the Church volume 6 weren’t professional historians? Or perhaps you are saying that those who compiled the History of the Church volume 6 were distorting church history?

Some of them could have been considered professional historians by that day and age, but History of the Church does not hold up to modern standards of historical methodology. See Dean C. Jessee, “The Reliability of Joseph Smith’s History.”

Kullervo: Seriously, voyeurism really really doesn’t mean the same thing as lusting after a celebrity.

I agree with you Kullervo, but that was the most generous interpretation of Rick’s words I could come to without thinking he was an idiot who didn’t know what voyeurism means. Perhaps I should have thought otherwise.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “…Joseph Smith, Jr. lied about his polygamous practices often, and quite flagrantly. I know of no modern historians who think otherwise.”

If you think that Joseph Smith Jr. lied about his alleged polygamous affairs, than why are you a Brighamite Mormon? If you think that he was so dishonest, than why would you believe that the Book of Mormon is true?

What you are doing is baring false witness against someone who has been dead for over 150 years. You have no proof that he was lying. All you are saying is that you believe these so-called historians are accurate in their assumptions. Again, where is the DNA evidence? If what you wrote that “…Joseph Smith, Jr. lied about his polygamous practices often…,” is true than where is the DNA evidence to back up your actuations? Joseph Smith Jr. had several children with his wife, Emma, and there is ample DNA evidence to prove that (see article published November 10, 2007 by Deseret News http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html), which proves that Joseph Smith Jr. was fertile.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “Only 4 DNA studies have been conducted. DNA studies are expensive and plenty of these descendants are no longer Mormons of any kind and don’t want to be bothered. So we’re far from proving Smith via DNA that Smith wasn’t a polygamist.”

Again, I didn’t accuse you of voyeurism and adultery. Anyone who can comprehend the English language can see that. I am accusing you of baring false witness against someone who has been dead for over 150 years though, which is a very serious sin.

First of all, I actually find it hard to believe you are a member of the church.

Secondly, I think you will be suprised at a lot of things when the Lord comes again.

And finally, who are we to say one way or the other if Jesus is married and if so, does he have multiple wives? Do not the scriptures say, “A man is not without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Jesus is not an exception to his own rule. Read Isaiah 4:1.

Rick Hurd:If you think that Joseph Smith Jr. lied about his alleged polygamous affairs, than why are you a Brighamite Mormon? If you think that he was so dishonest, than why would you believe that the Book of Mormon is true?

Who said I was a Brighamite Mormon? And no, I don’t think the Book of Mormon is true.

What you are doing is baring false witness against someone who has been dead for over 150 years. You have no proof that he was lying.

What I am doing is called “history.” When historians have conflicting accounts from different parties, they evaluate them and try to figure out who has reason to lie. In this case, we have dozens and dozens of accounts from Brighamite Mormons testifying (mostly after the fact, but there is some contemporary evidence) that Smith was a polygamist. We have hostile contemporary evidence from disaffected church members like John Bennett testifying that Smith was a polygamist. Then we have contemporary evidence from Smith himself which seems to point to relationships with these women. For instance, this letter from Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney and her parents:

“For my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way; and [if you] three would come and see me in this lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief… all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night… I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with the most perfect safty… the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty…”

I’ve only quoted part of the letter for space, and some of the markings and strikes I can’t convey through these comments. But what’s the Strangite interpretation of this letter supposed to be, especially the “watch out for Emma” part? Why would a monogamous church leader want his church members to bring their teenage daughter to see him in his private room at night and look out for his wife?

Well, I have a theory…

Again, where is the DNA evidence?

I’ve already answered this question offering a host of reasons for how Joseph Smith could have been practicing polygamy and not produced heirs from his polygamous wives. Pretending I ignored it does not make my answer go away. Even if they DNA test every potential possible descendant, it won’t prove Smith wasn’t a polygamist.

Again, see article published November 10, 2007 by Deseret News

So I got the number wrong and DNA tests have ruled out 5 potential Smith heirs, not 4. However, 2 of the women whose descendants were tested aren’t even on Compton’s list of Smith’s 33 wives (Mary Ann Frost Pratt and Clarissa Reed Hancock). There is still plenty of DNA testing to be done.

Again, I didn’t accuse you of voyeurism and adultery. Anyone who can comprehend the English language can see that.

And yet it’s your grasp of the English language that’s been challenged by other people on this thread, not mine. Delusional commentator is delusional.

I am accusing you of baring false witness against someone who has been dead for over 150 years though, which is a very serious sin.

I’m accusing you of bad history and not having a sense of humor, which are much graver sins against God and mankind. So I say unto you, REPENT!

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “…Who said I was a Brighamite Mormon? And no, I don’t think the Book of Mormon is true.”

On January 29, 2009 Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “…Being married to a Mormon…”

Sorry, I was assuming. You know what they say about assuming…

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “And yet it’s your grasp of the English language that’s been challenged by other people on this thread, not mine…”

Again, I didn’t accuse you of voyeurism and adultery. Anyone who can comprehend the English language can see that.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “…But what’s the Strangite interpretation of this letter supposed to be, especially the “watch out for Emma”

On August 28, 2008 I wrote “Again, I am not a Strangite” (See the above).

I speak/write for myself only, not the Strangites.

Concerning the supposed letter written by Joseph Smith Jr. What proof do you have that Joseph Smith Jr. wrote the letter? Has anyone had the letter analyzed by handwriting experts? Any creditable historian would. More than likely it was written by an anti-Mormon. Even if it was written by Joseph Smith Jr., you are only assuming that he had an affair, you have no proof, and even if he did have an affair, it was not polygamy or he wouldn’t have written “watch out for Emma.” Again, Polygamy is the marriage between one man and more than one woman. Emma would have known about it.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “…When historians have conflicting accounts from different parties, they evaluate them and try to figure out who has reason to lie. In this case, we have dozens and dozens of accounts from Brighamite Mormons testifying…”

Yes, “Brighamite Mormons testifying.” Brighamite Mormons have a reason to lie because they were the ones involved in polygamy, not Joseph Smith Jr. They were/are saying that Joseph Smith Jr. lied about being a polygamist to justify polygamy within their church. If Joseph Smith Jr. was telling the truth, than the Brighamite Mormons had nothing to justify their polygamy except D&C section 132, which was added after the death of Joseph Smith Jr., and is obviously bogus.

The Brighamites have really backed themselves into a corner on this issue. They are accusing the supposed founder of their church of adultly and lying. Yet D&C section 132 condones polygamy. If Joseph Smith really did receive a revelation which condones polygamy, than why would he lie about his involvement in polygamy?

Why would Joseph Smith Jr. lie about his polygamous relationships? Why would Emma Smith lie about Joseph’s polygamous relationships? They had no reason to do so. If Joseph Smith Jr. wanted to have other wives, he could have done so. Why would he lie about it? If D&C section 132 was true, than why would Joseph Smith Jr. lie about having other wives. It just doesn’t make sense.

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “I’ve already answered this question offering a host of reasons for how Joseph Smith could have been practicing polygamy and not produced heirs from his polygamous wives…”

Yes, and those “host of reasons” were to absurd for a response. I am sure that anyone seeking truth would agree.

If anyone finds any DNA evidence that connects Joseph Smith Jr. to polygamy, please let me be the first to know. Then I will gladly concede.

Again, I didn’t accuse you of voyeurism and adultery. Anyone who can comprehend the English language can see that.

Hey, did you know that if you repeat an argument that’s been refuted, it makes it true? Wait, no it doesn’t…

On August 28, 2008 I wrote “Again, I am not a Strangite” (See the above).

There are no comments on this blog post for August 28, 2008. In any case I’m sorry if I missed in the dozens and dozens of comments on this overlong thread that you’re not a Strangite, but what you’ve been saying is what I’m used to seeing from them. Even historians from the RLDS / CoC have given up the “Joseph wasn’t a polygamist” position and faced the music.

Concerning the supposed letter written by Joseph Smith Jr. What proof do you have that Joseph Smith Jr. wrote the letter?

The text of the letter was reproduced in Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness pages 349-350. His source is Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984, p. 539-542, which has a photograph of the letter.

Has anyone had the letter analyzed by handwriting experts? Any creditable historian would.

No, a credible historian would have only had the handwriting analyzed by an expert if there was a logical reason to doubt the letter’s provenance. The anti-polygamy ravings of adherents of LDS splinter groups (or whatever you are) don’t qualify. And since when do you care what credible historians do or think? Doesn’t even sound like you know any.

More than likely it was written by an anti-Mormon. Even if it was written by Joseph Smith Jr., you are only assuming that he had an affair, you have no proof, and even if he did have an affair, it was not polygamy or he wouldn’t have written “watch out for Emma.” Again, Polygamy is the marriage between one man and more than one woman. Emma would have known about it.

Was some part of this paragraph supposed to make sense? Seriously, that’s insane troll logic. You’re willing to accept Joseph Smith may have been having affairs, but not that he believed he was practicing polygamy? Huh?

Yes, but Joseph and Emma Smith also had reason to lie. (see below). The problem with thinking the Brighamites were lying was that they were damned stupid liars if they did. Why would they have women who were married to other men at the time of their marriages to Smith come forward and produce affidavits saying they were married to Smith? Don’t you think they’d have chosen only women who were single at the time of Smith’s supposed polygamy?

Zina Diantha Huntington (Jacobs Smith Young), for example, was 7 months pregnant at the time of her marriage to Smith and married to Henry Jacobs, and that claim created plenty of controversy at the time and still creates controversy today. Why would they send forth such problematic liars? Maybe because it was the truth.

Why would Joseph Smith Jr. lie about his polygamous relationships? Why would Emma Smith lie about Joseph’s polygamous relationships? They had no reason to do so.

Of course they did! Emma Smith lied because she was embarrassed by her husband’s indiscretions, and she isn’t the first woman in history to do so. She also did not want polygamy to be practiced in her splinter of the church, and admitting that her husband practiced it would have given strength to the position.

Joseph Smith had TONS of reasons to lie. (1) Because polygamy was illegal under Illinois state law (2) to keep Emma Smith from finding out about it since she refused to accept it (3) because polygamy was generally unacceptable to 19th century culture and would have driven converts and members away in droves if introduced to quickly and openly.

If Joseph Smith Jr. wanted to have other wives, he could have done so.

Which is exactly what he did.

Yes, and those “host of reasons” were to absurd for a response. I am sure that anyone seeking truth would agree.

Ha-ha, whatever Rick. As my friend JP Holding would say, at this point this thread resembles the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the black knight, having been shorn of his limbs, avers “Tis only a flesh wound!”

I’m gonna leave you to your bloody stumps now. It was fun mopping the floor with you.

I thought of another reason why this picture is stupid. The apologists for the picture keep dropping by and saying it’s meant to show that young women can have a disciple relationship with Jesus as much as anyone.

Here’s my problem with that: all of the young women in it are slender and attractive. While my contact with the church’s Young Women program has been limited, I was a youth leader for my evangelical church for years, and I can’t tell you how often teenage girls struggle with their bodies and appearance.

The last thing they need hanging on their wall at church is a painting reminding them of what they usually don’t look like. Ugh. Every ward that has this hanging on their wall ought to take it out into the street and burn it, then wack their leaders in the head for being stupid enough to put something like this up.

“Uh oh, she’s winning the argument. What do I do?… I know! I’ll pat her on the head and tell her she’s a too much of a ‘sweet darling thing’ to understand all these intellectual ‘manly’ things… Yeah… that could work.”

I suppose you also think women shouldn’t talk politics at dinner parties either.

So that those seeking truth who stumble upon this post my have a better understanding, I post the following:

There is no DNA evidence that connects Joseph Smith Jr. to polygamy.

No one has yet proven that Joseph Smith Jr. had more than one wife.

No one has yet proven that Joseph Smith Jr. was guilty of adultery.

No one has yet proven that Joseph Smith Jr. was guilty of having any sexual affairs with anyone other than his wife, Emma.

Joseph Smith Jr. denied having any polygamous relationships.

Emma Smith denied Joseph’s involvement in polygamy.

Section 132 of the Utah edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which condones polygamy, was published after the death of Joseph Smith Jr., and no one has proven that Joseph Smith Jr. had anything to do with writing it.

I totally disagree, and I think anyone else who seeks truth would agree with me.

Now I have another question for you and your “blood-sucking lawyers,” or anyone else.

Joseph Smith’s legal successor, James J. Strang, was also given plates to translate into the English language. These plates were called the Voree Plates. Unlike the plates used by Joseph Smith Jr. to translate the Book of Mormon into the English language, the Voree Plates were shown to many people. There were even newspapers that carried the story.

Like the witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates, the witnesses (Aaron Smith, Jira B. Wheelan, J. M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb.) to the Voree Plates also gave a testimony, and held to their testimonies until the day they died.

My question is, if you believe all those who testified that they were married to Joseph Smith Jr. than why wouldn’t you believe the testimonies of (Aaron Smith, Jira B. Wheelan, J. M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb?

The following is the testimony of Aaron Smith, Jira B. Wheelan, J. M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb:

On the thirteenth day of September, 1845, we, Aaron Smith,
Jirah B. Wheelan, James M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb, assembled at the call of James J. Strang, who is by us and many others approved as a Prophet and Seer of God. He proceeded to inform us that it had been revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill south of White River bridge, near the east line of Walworth County; and leading us to an oak tree, about one foot in diameter, told us that we would find it enclosed in a case of rude earthen ware under that tree, at the depth of about three feet; requested us to dig it up, and charged us to so examine the ground that we should know we were not imposed upon, and that it had not been buried there since the tree grew. The tree was surrounded by a sward of deeply rooted grass, such as is usually found in the openings; and
upon the most critical examination, we could not discover any
indication that it had ever been cut through or disturbed.
We then dug up the tree, and continued to dig to the depth of about three feet, where we found a case of slightly baked clay, containing three plates of brass.

The case was found imbedded in indurated clay, so closely fitting it that it broke in taking out; and the earth below the soil was so hard as to be dug with difficulty, even with a pickaxe. Over the case was found a flat stone, about one foot wide each way, and three inches thick, which appeared to have undergone the action of fire, and fell in pieces after a few minutes exposure to the air. The digging extended in the clay about eighteen inches, there being two kinds of
earth of different colour and appearance above it. We examined as we dug all the way with the utmost care, and we say, with the utmost confidence, that no part of the earth through which we dug exhibited any sign or indication that it had been moved or disturbed at any time previous. The roots of the tree struck down on every side very closely, extending below the case, and closely interwoven with roots from other trees. None of them had been broken or cut away. No clay is found in the country like that of which the case is made.
In fine, we found an alphabetick and pictorial record, carefully cased up, buried deep in the earth, covered with a flat stone, with an oak tree one foot in diameter, growing over it, with every evidence that the senses can give that it has lain there as long as that tree has been growing. Strang took no part in the digging, but kept entirely away, from before the first blow was struck till after the plates were taken out of the case; and the sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord, that a record would
thus and there be found. (Book of the Law of the Lord p. 250-251.)

Sorry, I can’t do Jesus administering to ugly people. I mean, I’ve seen pictures where the people being administered to aren’t so good-looking, but I don’t think the artist was intentionally drawing them that way. Still, I’d rather not the people he minister to look like Barbie dolls.

Jack: You have it all wrong. The women in the painting look nothing like Barbie. Quite the opposite actually: they are homely, out-of-shape, dreadful, and menacing (clockwise, from the top). But this artist masterfully created an elaborate optical illusion, wherein the girls individually are unattractive, but collectively exhibit such radiant beauty that your mind perceives them as Barbie-like. You can try to test this theory by covering most of the painting with your hand and viewing the girls individually, but I suspect that by now the undeniable splendor of the scene has created an indelible impression on your mind.

Not to argue with Bridget Jack Meyers, who is obviously contentious, I post the following:

On January 31, 2009 Bridget Jack Meyers posted:

“…we have contemporary evidence from Smith himself which seems to point to relationships with these women. For instance, this letter from Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney and her parents:

“For my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way; and [if you] three would come and see me in this lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief… all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night… I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with the most perfect safty… the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty…”

I’ve only quoted part of the letter for space, and some of the markings and strikes I can’t convey through these comments. But what’s the Strangite interpretation of this letter supposed to be, especially the “watch out for Emma” part? Why would a monogamous church leader want his church members to bring their teenage daughter to see him in his private room at night and look out for his wife?

What parts of the letter do the critics not tell you about?
As always, it is helpful to view the entire set of statements in content—something which none of the critics mentioned above manage to do. What follows is the entire letter, with the selections extracted by the critics highlighted:

Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I it is the will of God that you should comfort now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
So, let’s take a look at the portions of the letter that are not highlighted or included by any of these critics.

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
The letter is addressed to “Brother and Sister Whitney.” Sarah Ann is not mentioned by name, but is included as “&c.,” which is the equivalent of saying “and so on,” or “etc.” This hardly implies that what follows is a private “love letter” to Sarah Ann herself. In Todd Compton’s opinion, Joseph “cautiously avoids writing Sarah’s name.” [3]

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams;
Again, Joseph wants to talk to “you three,” meaning Newel, Elizabeth and Sarah Ann.

So what was the purpose of the visit by the Whitney’s?
Interestingly enough, the one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is excluded by the critics:

..one thing I want to see you for is git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to every allowance for me…
According to Richard L. Bushman, this may have been “a reference perhaps to the sealing of Newel and Elizabeth in eternal marriage three days later.” [4] Compton adds, “This was not just a meeting of husband and plural wife, it was a meeting with Sarah’s family, with a religious aspect. [5]

In addition to the stated purpose of the meeting, Joseph “may have been a lonely man who needed people around him every moment.” [6] Consider this phrase (included in Van Wagoner’s treatment, but excluded by the others):

…it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am al[l]ied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile. (emphasis added)
These are not the words of a man asking his secret lover to meet him for a private tryst—they are the words of a man who wants the company of friends.

So, what about Emma? The letter certainly contains dire warnings about having the Whitney’s avoid an encounter Emma. Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks before without Emma’s knowledge. [7] An encounter between the Whitney’s and Emma would have certainly become a very uncomfortable situation for all involved.

Conclusion
Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret “love letter” from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney’s, addressing it to Sarah’s parents. The “matter” to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride’s parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn’t want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there&mdashhe wants Emma gone because she is opposed to plural marriage. The contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney’s just a few weeks after Joseph’s sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to “git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads.”

Polygamy & adultery: under what Jesus said in the New Testament in Matthew 19:8-9, polygamy could be considered adultery.

The saying is hyperbolic-that is, it has exaggerated, intensified force: because God does not accept divorce as valid, any man who divorces his wife is not really divorced, and if he marries someone else, he commits adultery. No one else in antiquity spoke of divorce in such strong terms. (Because most Jewish teachers allowed polygamy, they would not have seen marrying a second wife as adultery, even if they had agreed that the man was still married to the first wife. But Jesus eliminates the double standard; a man consorting with two women is as adulterous as a woman consorting with two men.)

His writing style is a bit of an eyesore, but see Glenn Miller’s article here.

I think what that means for the LDS paradigm is that the validity of JS’s polygamy comes down to whether God actually commanded it or not.

Yes, I agree, but some of the women who claimed that Joseph Smith Jr. married them were already married at the time the marriage was supposed to have taken place, which according to scripture, is/was adultery.

Are saying that Joseph Smith Jr. was guilty of adultery, and lied about it?

If you believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was a liar, than why would you believe the Book of Mormon is true? Why would anyone else do the same?

I’m not sure I follow you. The point of Miller’s article was to show from the gospel of Matthew (and Mark) as well as from historical data concerning first century Jewish culture that Jesus was not a polygamist and taught against it. Are you saying you think the gospels may be wrong about what Jesus taught?

Good! Now on a spiritual level from a sola scriptura standpoint I’m opposed to polygamy (no offense; I know you’re from polygamist stock and all), but playing the let’s pretend game with the Mormon paradigm, I always found the standard apologist explanations for Nauvoo polyandry so dissatisfying. “There was probably no sex involved, we don’t have all the details, blah blah blah.” Even if you accept all that, you still have to accept Brigham Young was living with ZDHJ while her husband was away on a mission and long before she’d formally divorced him. Sounds like adultery to me.

UNLESS you think polyandry is okay. This is the first time I’ve ever heard that suggested, and well… what can I say. That’s just delightful.

Honestly, I think that the Church is ultimately going to move towards polyandry on a purely theological level.

This is just me spouting off my own opinion, but…

We already have instances in Mormon temple work for the deceased where women have been sealed to more than one husband of record. So far, this only applies to deceased women. I have never heard of a living Mormon woman being sealed to more than one man – living or dead.

Mormon men, of course, can be sealed to more than one woman – provided that only one of the women is living.

I think this would be a healthy place for the LDS Church to go theologically (I’m not suggesting the Church will ever re-embrace mortal plural marriage – at least in the foreseeable future). It creates a sort of equality among the sexes in heaven that I would like to see. It really doesn’t seem fair that a man who lost one wife and remarried while living will be reunited with both women, while Mormon women have to make a choice between husbands.

If you believe in eternal marriage and family, it seems to me that both polygyny and polyandry would have to be allowable in the Celestial Kingdom. Just a natural outgrowth of the doctrine in my mind.

Mormon men, of course, can be sealed to more than one woman – provided that only one of the women is living.

Are you sure this is true? I had a roommate whose LDS parents were recently divorced but had retained their seal. Her father called one time when my roommate wasn’t home and for some reason we wound up chatting for a long time about his marriage. He was engaged to a new woman and was talking about which temple he wanted to be sealed to her in.

The whole thing was a mess that I won’t go into in which he wound up not marrying the new wife in the temple (and had the marriage annulled not long after), but he seemed certain he could have two sealings to living women. Was he off his rocker?

In any case, that’s interesting. I think you’re the first pro-polyandry Mormon I’ve spoken to.

I’ve told my husband he’s free to have me sealed to him if I die before him, but he’d better not get sealed to anyone else if he does. And if he does pick up a second sealing, he’d better see about having me sealed to Jason Statham as well so that I can choose which one of them I want for all eternity.

I think that Matthew is undoubted incorrect about at least some of what Jesus taught. (it may be impossible to know exactly what though) If Jesus reveals himself to be a polygamist now, then Matthew may be overly biased against it.

It stands to reason that Matthew, most probably a third hand account, could not get everything right-

Jared ~ I have to say, your approach confuses me. It sounds like you’re putting the cart before the horse. What makes you think the gospel of Matthew (and Mark) isn’t Jesus’s way of revealing that He wasn’t a polygamist? Who better to know if Jesus was a polygamist than someone writing about it in the 1st century?

Brian ~ I thought everyone was going to be Mormon eventually if Mormonism is true. Jason Statham’s current religious affiliation (whatever that is) means little in the face of eternity, amirite?

On January 31, 2009 Bridget Jack Meyers wrote:”…a credible historian would have only had the handwriting analyzed by an expert if there was a logical reason to doubt the letter’s provenance…”

Any credible historian who has done research into the subject of Mormon polygamy knows that Joseph Smith Jr. denied his involvement in polygamy, and would make for certain that any letter presumably written by Joseph Smith Jr. would be authentic. For instance nine days before his martyrdom, Joseph received and wrote a revelation containing the calling of James J. Strang. A copy of this letter, known as the Letter of Appointment, is still in existence in the archives at
Yale University. It was examined by an independent group of handwriting experts who came to the conclusion that the signature on it, that of Joseph Smith’s, was genuine (See THE TEACHINGS OF A MORMON PROPHET p. 250-263.)

What most of these so called “Mormon historians” are doing is quoting the works of others without questing their sources, which isn’t credible.

Rick, you’re an idiot and you know absolutely nothing about how history is done. I told you 20 posts ago I was done responding you, after I creamed you the first time and you retreated to sexism and obstinance with your dozens of well poisoning fallacies to keep you company.

Now shove off or I’ll have to start whacking you across the muzzle with a rolled-up newspaper.

Jared ~ I have to say, your approach confuses me. It sounds like you’re putting the cart before the horse. What makes you think the gospel of Matthew (and Mark) isn’t Jesus’s way of revealing that He wasn’t a polygamist? Who better to know if Jesus was a polygamist than someone writing about it in the 1st century?

Jack,

First, I don’t agree that Matthew 19 prohibits polygamy any more than Matthew 22 endorses it. Nor do I think that Matthew reveals, in any definitive way, Jesus’s marital status.

(I also don’t think it matters one way or the other whether Jesus was a polygamist. )

The best person to know whether Jesus was a polygamist would be Jesus, who according to Christians is still alive and kicking. Whoever has a better line of communication with Him?

Since, like countless other questions of history or doctrine, the Gospels are certainly not crystal clear on the issue I am open to further light and knowledge from modern prophets on the subject (or kick-ass artwork)

It seems a bit counter-intuitive to trust a 2000 year old book written third hand if a more recent source is available.

I made a mistake. I wrote “…Joseph received and wrote a revelation containing the calling of James J. Strang. A copy of this letter, known as the Letter of Appointment, is still in existence in the archives at Yale University…”

It isn’t a copy of the letter known as the Letter of Appointment, but rather the original letter known as the Letter of Appointment that is still in existence in the archives at Yale University.

The Letter of Appointment fulfilled previous revelations given through Joseph Smith Jr. The following is one of those revelations which the Letter of Appointment fulfilled:

“Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you while thou art in this world, neither in the world to come; nevertheless through you shall the oracles be given to another, even unto the church.” (D&C section 90:3-4.)

The oracles were never given to Brigham Young through Joseph Smith Jr.. Brigham Young was an apostate who was excommunicated from the church. There is no valid priesthood in the Brighamite church, which is also known as the LDS or “Mormon” church.

Jared ~ First, I don’t agree that Matthew 19 prohibits polygamy any more than Matthew 22 endorses it. Nor do I think that Matthew reveals, in any definitive way, Jesus’s marital status.

Even if you dismiss Matthew 19 (for whatever reason), you still have the “one wife” prohibitions in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6. That would be an odd thing for Christians to be teaching if Jesus Himself was a polygamist.

The best person to know whether Jesus was a polygamist would be Jesus, who according to Christians is still alive and kicking. Whoever has a better line of communication with Him? … It seems a bit counter-intuitive to trust a 2000 year old book written third hand if a more recent source is available.

Counter-intuitive, to me, would be trusting any source that suddenly has a revelation of Jesus doing something that the speaker himself practices. Polygamists who say Jesus was a polygamist, feminists who say Jesus was a feminist, homosexuals who say Jesus was a homosexual, blacks who say Jesus was black, they’re all cut from the same cloth as far as I’m concerned. Men are always trying to make Jesus more like themselves instead of learning to be more like Jesus.

Heck, once upon a time I had a lot of contact online with a polygamous Christian group in Europe (they started out as an LDS splinter group), and they taught that Adam was a polygamist (!).

Now I don’t have a problem with Jesus being married (though I don’t think He was, and the Mary Magdalene theory is rather silly), but polygamy? When I find something outside of 19th century polygamous LDS leaders saying so, I’ll consider it.

Jack, both those scripture passages refer to BISHOPS only. A specialized calling in the early Christian church and who knows why Paul was calling for such behavior from the bishops? Maybe for similarly pragmatic or pedestrian reasons as for his call for female dress standards. Maybe?

Just a thought.

Look, I don’t think the Bible gives a slam dunk for polygamy. But it’s just really tenuous to read 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as blanket prohibitions on polygamy. It’s like those passages in the Old Testament about how a KING should not multiply wives/concubines. You take a passage directed at a narrow class of individuals and try to make it a cosmic law for everyone.

Seth, I’m not arguing for a cosmic law against polygamy–well, I do have an argument for a cosmic law against polygamy, but I haven’t even begun to make it here. Nothing I’m saying here is meant to disprove the 19th century LDS practice, which stemmed from modern-day revelation and not the Bible. In the LDS paradigm it wouldn’t matter even if the New Testament prohibited polygamy, since Mormons don’t see the Bible as God’s final word to mankind anyways.

I’m only arguing on whether or not Jesus was a polygamist, and I stand by what I’ve said in that regard. Matthew 19:8-9 makes little sense if Jesus Himself thought polygamy was okay at the time, and it’s bizarre that bishops/elders would be commanded to have only one wife if their exemplar was a polygamist.

Seth R. wrote: “Wouldn’t it be cool if Muhammad actually turned out to be a bona fide prophet of God?

It is actually a possibility from a Mormon theological standpoint.”

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the
Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is
cognizant of all things” (Extracted for the Koran (033.040)).
The only possibilities that I can think of are:

1) Mohamad was a false prophet and Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God.

2) Mohamad was a prophet of God and Joseph Smith Jr. was a false prophet.

3) Mohamad and Joseph Smith were false prophets.

4) There was an error in the translation of the passage quoted.

I have consulted with several Islamic “Scholars” about the possibility of an error in the translation took place. All of these Islamic “Scholars” told me basically the same thing: The passage should be interpreted to mean that Mohamad was the last of the prophets.

I post the following not to argue with Bridget Jack Meyers, who is obliviously a contentious troll:

On January 31, 2009 Bridget Jack Meyers wrote:”…You’re willing to accept Joseph Smith may have been having affairs, but not that he believed he was practicing polygamy?…”

That isn’t true. I didn’t write that I was willing to accept that Joseph Smith Jr. may of been having affairs with other women other than his wife, Emma. Perhaps he did have affairs, but there is no proof that he did, nor do I think that it is it any business of mine if he did.

Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered on June 27, 1844, yet people are still trying to dig up the dirt on him. Why don’t they just mind their own business and stop being hypocrites?

Rick Hurd ~ I post the following not to argue with Bridget Jack Meyers, who is obliviously a contentious troll

I think what you mean is that I’m obviously a successful troll, because you keep replying to me!

That isn’t true. I didn’t write that I was willing to accept that Joseph Smith Jr. may of been having affairs with other women other than his wife, Emma. Perhaps he did have affairs, but there is no proof that he did, nor do I think that it is it any business of mine if he did.

Joseph Smith Jr. was murdered on June 27, 1844, yet people are still trying to dig up the dirt on him. Why don’t they just mind their own business and stop being hypocrites?

Congratulations, Rick, for that line of thinking you win the Billy Madison award:

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having heard it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Jack- Polygamists who say Jesus was a polygamist, feminists who say Jesus was a feminist, homosexuals who say Jesus was a homosexual, blacks who say Jesus was black, they’re all cut from the same cloth as far as I’m concerned. Men are always trying to make Jesus more like themselves instead of learning to be more like Jesus.

I know, I hate that too, especially when Catholics and Protestants try to make Jesus out to be a trinitarian. 😉

Bridget Jack Meyers wrote: “I think what you mean is that I’m obviously…”

Yes. Thank you for correcting me. I should have written, I post the following not to argue with Bridget Jack Meyers, who is obviously a contentious troll. I never was much good at spelling.

3 Ne. 11: 29

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

Section 132 of the Utah edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which condones polygamy, was published after the death of Joseph Smith Jr., and no one has proven that Joseph Smith Jr. had anything to do with writing it.

Anti-Mormons have been accusing Joseph Smith Jr. of having affairs with other women besides his wife, Emma, and being involved in polygamy since before he was murdered in June of 1844. If the anti-Mormons would only stop posting these false accusations on this thread, I would gladly stop refuting them.

Bridget Jack Meyers, I never claimed to be smart. Being smart won’t help you in the least come judgement day, but I did see through you from the start. That is the reason I refused to argue with you. Those who took your side are the suckers.

I’ve not read all of these posts but I wanted to add a comment as some many people find this painting to be aparently sexual in nature. Or atleast insiuating of that sort of relationship.
I do not know the artist’s intentions but I know my realtionship with my Savior. It is not sexual…obviously!… but pure reverence and love. What I see when I look at those girls kneeling around and listening to His words is just that total and pure love. I would think nothing of standing that close to my Father or brother because touch is a way of showing trust and is often apropriate.
I am married and have a beautiful daughter. I can tell you two things, one is that the way I stand next to my husband does not resemble the way those girls are standiing next to Christ. There is no sexual intamasy in that picture. And two… I have often thought of adding this picture to my home colection because I want my daughter to know a close personal relationship with the Savior is possible and disrable.

And Jesus is teaching the girls how to conceal deadly throwing weapons disguised as roses?

Speaking of polygamy, there’s a part in Saints Row 2 where you’re running a police mission and HQ tells you to “Go and break up the polygamist fight.” You arrive on the scene to find many women in their yard arguing with one man.

Could be, Jack. Although another possibility is that the rose is an Miyagi-style object lesson: “Be deadly as a thorn, but beautiful as a rose.” Come to think of it, I’ve heard something like that before….

My wife also noted that each young assassin woman is at a different skill level, as indicated by their belt color.

Ok, all kidding aside, if we consider the artist’s intent, Jesus is most likely teaching a Young Women’s lesson in this picture.

My guess its: Lesson 31: Group Activities: A Basis for Wise Dating:

“Young people should still limit the close contacts for several years, since the boy will be going on his mission when he is 19 years old. There should be limited contacts and certainly no approach to the intimate relationships involving sex.”

Okay, first question, for the Evangelicals out there: What if Jesus was married? What if he had kids? From there it’s not really much of a stretch to polygamist Jesus, since monogamy in the ancient world is the exception rather than the rule, I believe.

But let’s keep it simple, and specific:

1. Theologically speaking, why shouldn’t Jesus have been married? Why couldn’t he have been married?

2. What if you found out he was married (monogamously), despite your theology? What then? How much of your larger theological understanding of Jesus Christ is going to have to be unraveled?

3. Is your answer different if it turns out he had kids? What about if he had more than one wife?

4. Since you (I assume) believe Jesus was not/could not have been married based on theological grounds, how much proof would you need to be given that he was indeed married before you were willing to revise your theology?

PS, this is post 299. So the first person to legitimately answer my questions gets the #300 prize. If you try to claim it without 1) being an intended questionee (i.e. Evangelical non-Mormon) AND 2) giving a legitimate answer to all four parts of the question, then you are going to hell.

Oh, man, you guys got to 300 before I could delurk and put my shoulder to the wheel! And I can’t even qualify for Kullervo’s prize because even though I’m an Evangelical who doesn’t see a problem with Jesus being married, that’s probably because my theology is contaminated by my former Mormon-ness (or so I’ve been told). And I miss Rick Hurd too.

Kullervo ~ since monogamy in the ancient world is the exception rather than the rule, I believe

This is not true for the simple fact that there haven’t been enough women born on this earth for polygamy to be the rule. Even if you factor in things like war depleting the male population from time to time, there still haven’t been enough women for most men to have even had 2 wives. Monogamy has been the rule in most cultures, polygamy the exception.

This is also why the Warren Jeffs polygamy group has to run out over 2/3rds of their young male population as they grow up. They teach that three wives are required for salvation, but they know they don’t actually produce enough female children to maintain a 3:1 ratio.

Theologically speaking, why shouldn’t Jesus have been married? Why couldn’t he have been married?

He could have been. I personally don’t believe that He was, but He could have been.

What if you found out he was married (monogamously), despite your theology? What then? How much of your larger theological understanding of Jesus Christ is going to have to be unraveled?

It wouldn’t change anything about my theology as per the hypostatic union. He was fully God and fully man. In fact one of my greatest comforts (theologically) is that no matter how hard or how unkind my life has been at times, God already came here and did it all Himself and knows exactly what I’m going through. If He knows what it’s like to have to comfort a grieving wife and be yelled at for not taking the trash out, that’s even better. His marriage could also be viewed as a type for His love for the church.

Is your answer different if it turns out he had kids? What about if he had more than one wife?

The kids would be a non-issue because, believe it or not, that would go with his “fully man” side. Finding out He was a polygamist would challenge a lot of my beliefs on the Old Covenant v. the New and what Christ accomplished when He came here. I’m not even open to the possibility.

Since you (I assume) believe Jesus was not/could not have been married based on theological grounds, how much proof would you need to be given that he was indeed married before you were willing to revise your theology?

There isn’t really anything you could do to prove to me that He was married short of inventing a time machine and taking me back so I can see for myself. The whole “Jesus must have been married because He was a rabbi and they had to be married” argument is hopelessly ignorant of the degree of Jewish rabbinical practices in 1st century Palestine and Old Testament prophets, for that matter. I mean, Jeremiah wasn’t married.

This is not true for the simple fact that there haven’t been enough women born on this earth for polygamy to be the rule. Even if you factor in things like war depleting the male population from time to time, there still haven’t been enough women for most men to have even had 2 wives. Monogamy has been the rule in most cultures, polygamy the exception.

Sure, but we’re not talking about the same thing. In terms of number of marriages, monogamous marriages are almost certainly the overwhelming majority. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking in terms of social norms and mores–people and cultures for whom polygamy occurred and was a socially acceptable practice, not number polygamous marriages.

Kullervo ~ Sure, but we’re not talking about the same thing. In terms of number of marriages, monogamous marriages are almost certainly the overwhelming majority. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking in terms of social norms and mores–people and cultures for whom polygamy occurred and was a socially acceptable practice, not number polygamous marriages.

That may be, my knowledge really only extends to ANE and Greco-Roman cultures. I’m not sure how many cultures throughout the ancient world technically allowed polygamy and considered it normal and acceptable.

“This is also why the Warren Jeffs polygamy group has to run out over 2/3rds of their young male population as they grow up. They teach that three wives are required for salvation, but they know they don’t actually produce enough female children to maintain a 3:1 ratio.”

Yeah, these poor guys are known as the “lost boys.” Interesting thing though – I’ve heard one Mormon researcher suggest that “lost boys” may not have been a problem for 1800s polygamy in Utah.

How does that work?

Well imagine a population pyramid – with earlier generations at the top, and later generations below in descending order.

As long as there is a constant growth in population with each succeeding generation, you can ensure enough plural wives by the simple (and natural) practice of men marrying women two or three years younger than they. If the population keeps growing, there will always be more eligible young brides than there are eligible young men a couple years older than they.

Kullervo ~ since I clearly can back up my assertion with absolutely nothing. I pretty much just pulled it out of my ass.

One of my old youth pastors was fond of saying, “I don’t have to know everything, I just have to know more than you do and then you have to trust me.” I think you would have liked him.

Seth ~ A further thought on the male population & LDS polygamy, I thought I remembered reading a statistic somewhere that there were more men in pioneer Utah than women, which was common enough on the frontier. I always just assumed there were plenty of single men out there, but I’ve never studied how exactly the polygamy numbers worked out. It’d be interesting if it was the pyramid population thing.

As for LDS polygyny, I’ve seen estimates ranging from only 5-25% of married LDS men engaging in the practice. Combined with Seth’s pyramid suggestion, that helps explain why there weren’t excess bachelors. (Or at least, a ton of excess bachelors.)

Do Evangelicals believe that sex is eternal? If not, was it just an accident that Jesus was a Man?

I ask because I think it has some bearing on whether marriage would/should be considered a full part of being the “perfect” human.

Jack- The fact that Jeremiah wasn’t married proves nothing, he was a real downer in mixed company and wearing a yoke around your neck seriously reduces your ability to attract ladies. . . and, according to some sources, he had chronic halitosis.

BrianJ ~ On second thought, maybe the prize was going to be a certified limited edition print of the painting signed by the artist. If so, Jack, I feel really awful for stealing that away from you.

Are you kidding me? I have awesome pictures on my daughter’s bedroom walls, Larry the Cucumber and Spiderman. You know, men my daughter can actually look up to. None of this polygamy Jesus crap.

Jared ~ Sex gender? I think gender is eternal because the Bible says we’ll be as the angels, and male angels are definitely described with female angels possibly described in Zechariah 5:9. Jesus’s gender is something of a mystery to me, but He had to be one or the other to be human, and my own view of the Trinity is based on Jesus’s identification as the Wisdom of God in Jewish wisdom literature, which was feminine. So I dunno.

I am all in favor of sending word of this thread to Del Parson, if only to freak him out.

I find it hillarious that kullervo is condemning mormons here while he is using as his name kullervo, a very unfortunate character in finnish kalevala, who even ended up having sex with his sister and killing himself, very good role model to have when you try to condemn people of another faith.

Bye the way, if you keep insisting that brigham young taught that jesus was polygamous and was cruxified for that, give us some sources to prove your point, because when orson hyde claimed such things, his seer publications were disowned by the church presidency.

Kullervo of the Kalevala actually kicked a lot of ass in the northern regions before he offed himself, so watch out.

It might be ironic that you are capping on the name kullervo, with a name like Jaredite. The Jaredites developed a insular destructive culture that ate itself alive. after being plagued by drought and hoards of hungry vipers.

Kullervo,

You can just keep it open without adding to the discussion, you now have to to add something about sex in heaven?

I think the whole “Mormon heaven is best because I get to have teh eternal s3XXX0|2z” is pretty stupid.

To me, it’s the perfect example of everything that makes Mormonism obviously something made up by a bunch of frontier lay ministers and quasi-educated “common sense” folksy believers.

The sex drive is pretty much entirely biological. Yeah, orgasms are great, but you really can’t imagine a state of being that could be so sublime that bodily pleasures would seem just not worth bothering with?

Kullervo ~ I think the whole “Mormon heaven is best because I get to have teh eternal s3XXX0|2z” is pretty stupid. … Yeah, orgasms are great, but you really can’t imagine a state of being that could be so sublime that bodily pleasures would seem just not worth bothering with?

kullervo: “Mormonism obviously something made up by a bunch of frontier lay ministers and quasi-educated”

O c’mon, the belief you’re talking about—is it even widely taught or semi-official? I don’t think it is, but if you’ve got the references to prove it…. Otherwise what you’ve got is some speculation that’s circulated around among some members.

And while I agree that some wacky beliefs would be expected from a religion made up by some frontier lay ministers, they would also arise within a religion revealed straight from God to a bunch of quasi-educated frontier lay ministers.

Kullervo: Not much—which in my view is a whole lot better than marrying one’s sister and suicide.

katyjane: the code for strikethrough is “strike,” but I’ll warn you: the freaks people in the Strikethrough Cult are all vicious serious, filthy earth-loving, lying creative whoremongersJohn Mayer fans.

There was this one conversation on the Mormon blog Zelophehad’s Daughters that went pretty far afield where someone suggested that the universe is actually run by a divine council of wives who basically tell God the Father what to do, and He does it.

There was this one conversation on the Mormon blog Zelophehad’s Daughters that went pretty far afield where someone suggested that the universe is actually run by a divine council of wives who basically tell God the Father what to do, and He does it.

We all know that vampires are sensitive to religious symbols—they can’t, for example, touch a Bible. But could they touch a Book of Mormon? or the Pearl of Great Price? How would vampires respond to the beautiful painting above?

The unholy energy from the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP neutralizes the holy energy from the Bible, so vampires are fond of combo’ing the four together and taking them to vampire church. I hear they don’t have any crosses in their churches, either.

No, no, crosses of any kind don’t work on evangelicals. It takes silver weapons to get rid of us, preferably silver bullets, and Tim and I are new and improved, super-evangelicals. We’re the evangelical equivalent of Daywalkers.

Speaking of religion and monster legends, anybody here ever seen Dracula 2000? Well, I hope no one else is trashy enough to watch such low-grade horror movies as I am, but it has the most bizarre origin story for vampires that I’ve ever heard.

Does anyone else miss having illuminating commentary from Utah teenagers?

Because if vampires are still on the table, I feel like they’d want to remind us that a world without Edward Cullen is hardly worth living in at all, no matter how much Jesus loves each of his wives young women just as they are.

Nah, I’m just kidding, I’ll take the werewolf kid over the patronizing bloodsucker any day.

Anyways, the whole magic thing is really a matter of family preference, same as how some Latter-day Saint families will tell their teenage daughters not to wear shirts that show shoulder and some are fine with it. Some evangelicals are concerned that books like Harry Potter make use of real-life occultic practices and have other complaints about the series. Richard Abanes (whom I met at a FAIR conference years ago) is one such person. As a teenager I used to regularly babysit for a woman who would not allow any magic-themed children’s material into her home, not even Narnia or LotR. My experience has been that evangelicals like that are the exception and not the rule.

The general rule is that if you think it’s going to be a negative influence on you or your family, don’t let it into your home. The same goes for movies, video games and tv shows with certain ratings or content.

I myself have a high tolerance for violence, swearing, magic, etc. in my entertainment outlets; I’m a bit less tolerant of sexuality but still more tolerant than the average LDS family I’d wager. I grew up in a non-religious home where I was allowed to watch or read whatever I wanted, so I’m just very de-sensitized to it all.

I haven’t completely decided yet what limits I’m going to place on my daughter, but I definitely won’t withhold Harry Potter or The Golden Compass from her if she wants to read them. I would rather have her read them and discuss differing viewpoints with her than shelter her from them.

Wow, I have to admit that I actually read all of that and at times it was very difficult, like when Rick Hurd had some sort of opinion until you stomped him BJM… he gave up like a puss. I’m sure you guys love the new blood in here, or maybe I’m just one of those outsiders that come and go. I admit, I stumbled across this thread as I was looking for pictures to use in my Sunday School lesson.

I am a first-generation convert to the Mormon church. My mother-in-law gave me a copy of that picture to remind me that Jesus loves women and thinks of their purity very highly, I think that’s why they are wearing what they are.

It seems silly to me that this discussion lasted this long because I am of the mindset that, like Joseph Smith, if you read or follow the Bible or the teachings of Christ in any way, you should ask of God, that is, PRAY to learn the truth of things. The fact that previous apostles, prophets, bishops, or random musings of the natural man say anything trying to “prove/disprove” anything at all mean nothing to me. These ramblings of man mean nothing to me unless by prayer I gain a personal assurance from God the Father via the Holy Ghost that anything is “true.”

And who’s to say that your “truth” is supposed to be the same as mine. I say, if something does you harm for believing it, then it is bad and not to be incorporated into your “truth.” And the opposite must also be true. If believing that Joseph Smith was/wasn’t a poligamist helps your life move in the right direction, the I’m all for your interpretation of your own “truth.” I gain my truth by prayer and self-revelation.

Say someone you trust and respect in your church tells you that it has been revealed to them that you are to believe that green men came down from Pluto, that long-forgotten not-planet, and want you to worship them now. Would you believe them unequivically? Probably not, unless you are just a blind follower of all things you hear. I imagine you would try to ascertain a surety of your own. And if you believe in God and believe that He is the bearer of all truth, wouldn’t you first ask Him???

Ask of God if any of this is true, He will answer, you have to be listening of course.

That is all… I just felt that the point had not been raised. I understand that some reading this may not believe in God and that is fine, most of my family don’t. But ask yourself if what you are hearing seems right, if not, maybe it isn’t, no matter whether an apostle, prophet, or randome jack hole like Rick said it.

I love the picture. It represents something to me and may never represent the same to you, but isn’t that what art intrinsically is? It is made to evoke a variety of feelings that may differ drastically for each of us. As an art major, this is not my favorite genre, but neither is impressionism. I DO however give the artist mad props for doing what he/she loves, no matter the style. It is fun to pick apart peices of pop culture and try to talk through a “cypher” to the artist’s code. But, come on, isn’t the easiest explanation usually the right one? The artist loves Christ, as shown by looking at any of his other works. He wants to portray the love of man (in this case, woman) for Christ… hence the longing-looking gazes of the women. If I saw Jesus, I think I’d look very lovingly at Him too. Not sexually mind-you, He is, after all, my brother 🙂 (I have eyes only for my husband’s man-lovin’) But he is supposed to be most beautiful to look at right?…

Anyway, I’m rambling and I do not wish to carry on like Rick and have people scan over my ramblings like, I must admit, I did to Rick’s.

Thanks for the place to spew my understanding of these very important – heh – issues.

I love seeing and talking about others’ veiwpoints. I think that these types of discussions are essential to gaining some knowledge of this world, which, I would think most agree with me, is important for life and spiritual improvement. Knowledge and intelligence are certainly two different things. One we are given and the other gained, but I’ll leave which to those who’d like to know the difference. I’ve been looking around this cite and I think – overall – it is a positive thing as long as those that frequent it have an open mind to others’ religious views and continue to treat each other with kindness, respect, and understanding.

Thanks Jared… I look forward to hearing what stuff you’d like me to think about.

My husband and I used to play on a low-magic, heavy-roleplay Neverwinter Nights server called The Abyss; that was how I met my friend Laura who sometimes comments here. She was one of the DMs there. It’s been down forever, but I think they’re getting it back up soon. The NWN game is old as hell, but we had a close-knit community of roleplayers who were just fantastic.

Actually, I’m not usually too jazzed about any of the races other than human.

I solo NWN on occasion in my spare time. Never did get into the online component. My college-age brother in law visited us for Christmas and me and my wife did a short beginner game with him under the new 4e rules for D&D. It was fun. But that’s about the extent of my experience.

And lest this gets out of hand too quickly, I submit that I am a vastly more experienced gamer than everyone here.

I’ve been playing RPGs since I was 8. That’s right; I’ve got over 20 years of gaming under my belt. I’ve played dozens+ of different systems and settings, and read the rulebooks and supplements for probably three to six times as many games as I have actually played.

I gotta go with Kulervo. Basically all races except human are pretty fail in just about every setting. Though I have to admit, if you’re going Planescape (my personal favorite setting . . . ever), human really just seems so dull.

Are we talking playing humans for power builds or playing humans for the sheer joy of roleplaying? I think they’re one of the best all-around races to play, but I hate actually roleplaying them because I have to do that every freaking day of my life.

I didn’t get started with RP until my husband got me into it not long after we got married—hey, what do you expect, I’ve been evangelical since I was 10 and DnD was eeeevil. The Abyss was a neat experience because it had a wide variety of custom races and the only people who played pure humans there were people who wanted power builds.

Of course, my first character was a Nephilim (Corrupted Abyssal Aasimar) Cleric of Ilmater who later converted to Torm and went Champion, which is pretty much the closest thing DnD has to a Christian class, so who am I to talk?

Jack–I was also initiated by the hubby. He has to admit, though, that I was kind of tricked. When I met him, he was gaming every week with a group of guys, and all were good looking, smart, and relatively normal people.

It wasn’t until later that I met the other kind… But then again, gamers always compliment my cooking, so I am down with nerddom.

And, my favorite is a halfling rogue. Playing a human in an RPG is a cop out.

katyjane ~ And, my favorite is a halfling rogue. Playing a human in an RPG is a cop out.

See, Kullervo, your wife knows what she’s talking about.

I think my favorite character to play was my lawful evil madfly monk–madflies have the elf model in NWN with pale blue skin and hair and butterfly wings. I haven’t decided yet if I’m going to return to the game now that the server is back up, but if I do I think I’ll retcon that character a bit and give her another try.

Settlers of Cataan is probably the first thing we do with people we’re having over for dinner for the first time. After dinner, of course…

It’s not that Settlers is even my favorite game anymore, but it’s easy, I’ve played it enough that I don’t obsess about winning it anymore, and it usually gives my wife and I a great opportunity to read our guests’ personalities.

Jack: do you hate Parker Bros/Milton Bradley or do you hate board games that are actually good? (Hint: with few exceptions, the designer has got to be German.)

Seth: stay strong, bro.

All: think we could design a board game with a “polygamist Jesus, assassin wives” theme? Seth could do the legal work, Kullervo could make it seem like it was designed by a German, I could take care of any italics, Rick Hurd could help with…something, katyjane could take up storyline and marketing (since apparently she is “hot”)—Jack, Katie: I don’t want to leave anyone out here; what’s your specialty?

No no no no. German games are good, but they’re really just one kind of good game, and they all have a really particular style. Fantasy Flight Games and Days of Wonder are some US game companies that make great games.

True, Days of Wonder makes some great games (many of them German-style and some even designed by Germans). At any rate, you’ve proven your superiority in gaming knowledge and I humbly bow in your presence (well, at least until it’s time to bid on the next power station).

Hmmmm…not being much of a gamer (though I play a mean round of Boggle–does that even count?), I’m afraid my contribution may be limited. But since it’s got a Polygamous Jesus/Assassin Wives theme, I’d be more than happy to model some of my mad Billy Blanks Tae-Bo skillz as inspiration for the cover artwork.

My family never did that “let’s have wholesome family time” thing growing up, so I never played board games much, and there haven’t been any that I’ve been able to get into as an adult. I was always a video game person, and I love party games to that effect. When Paul and I have company we like to set up X-Boxes in different rooms and go at each other on a Halo game or something.

I think we should totally make a “Polygamy Jesus Assassin!” game. BFF, Katie and I are good at being perverse, so maybe we’re your experts on moral bankruptcy…

Plus you could use me and Katyjane and Katie as your models for the cover artwork, then we just need one more wife. Who wants to model polygamy Jesus?

I personally think this picture shows Jesus merallly teaching to the women. Didnt we learn that Jesus taught to all no matter what. What would you specuate if it was men. That Jesus was gay? No. You would merlly say he was teaching them wouldnt you. Jesus loved all, Jesus taught all. I think mormons and non-mormons alike can agree on this one.

Jack, I didn’t get an invite, but I joined the group anyway. Sometimes you don’t get to vote another wife in, I guess. Too bad for you. (please don’t kick me out, or I will feel like I have been divorced by you and all of the other wives too!)

Is this actually put out by the church? Is it on LDS.org or in any of the picture/art kits? I tried looking at LDS.org under image libraries, and under Young Women’s. I couldn’t find it. Can someone give a link? Thanks.

Ok, I found it at DB. But is this actually put out by the church? Is it on LDS.org or in any of the picture/art kits? I tried looking at LDS.org under image libraries, and under Young Women’s. I couldn’t find it. Can someone give a link? Thanks.

1)–Jack, how on earth could you have found out about that search? Are you sure it wasn’t your search?

2)–katyjane, if Edward’s name was Jehovah, it would have made much more sense to me why he was guarding her chastity so zealously.

3)–Finally, assuming the couple in question feels the spirit has indicated that the removal of Gs is not okay for intimate encounters, I would argue that there may well be a need for separate LDS sex positions.

Katie ~ I have access to Tim’s blog stats in the dashboard as one of the enabled guest authors here. It shows what search engine queries are hitting this site. I don’t normally check Tim’s stats, but today I clicked on the wrong dashboard.

I wouldn’t have to do that search because I already know the ultimate sexual position for Mormons: the MISSIONARY position.

Jack -I think we have you to blame for this blog being so high on the rankings in the “LDS sex position” searches out there.

Ever since you drove Rick Hurd from our midst we have been lost in the mists of darkness. I am sure Tim is looking wistfully back on the days where the strangest comments made on this post were two page lists of scriptural quotes and inspiration from James Strang.

AND BTW: The Missionary position was an invention of protestant missionaries. Our missionaries definitely have more creative sexual imaginations (at least judging from my own experience).

Um, no. I’m pretty sure the missionary position existed long before Protestants ever did, though they probably called it something else back then.

In any case, I’m a former Protestant missionary who is sleeping with a returned Mormon missionary. I really, really don’t think you want me to weigh in on who has the more creative sexual imaginations.

As for Rick Hurd, well, what can I say. If he ever comes back, I’ll try to be more gentle.

I’m pretty sure the missionary position existed long before Protestants ever did

Are you sure? ‘Cuz I always thought everyone just did it standing up prior to the Reformation.

I really, really don’t think you want me to weigh in on who has the more creative sexual imaginations.

Maybe Jared doesn’t…but I’d LOVE to hear. 😀

Ha. Just kidding.

(P.S. Being relatively new to all this, sometimes I don’t know whether or not to write “just kidding” after comments I make on the Internet. To me I feel like it’s pretty obvious that I’m just kidding, but sometimes I fear it’s not always so obvious. In case anyone is wondering/concerned/offended, I am just kidding approximately 9.4 times out of 10.)

Jack, yes it does matter whether the church actually promulgates/distributes/sells something done by an LDS artist. The church distributing something puts some sort of approval on it that it wouldn’t automatically have if the church did not.

You are aggressive, overbearing, and really good in bed–which is why your husband usually visits you twice as much as he does your other sister-wives. You take control of every family situation and usually get your way. Your sister-wives, children, and husband are afraid of you, and you like it..

Since me and Jared and Kullervo all rated “assassin,” I’m convinced that it’s reading Tim’s blog that makes you good in bed.

Here’s something new I can add though: a couple of weeks ago, a blogger at one of the big LDS blogs almost did a post on this painting. S/he published it and then retracted it almost immediately, but it got sent out to the Google reader just the same.

Here is the version that was sent out to the Google reader. I have removed the name of the blogger & the blog. There is a voice in the back of my head telling me that it’s bad form to share a retracted post, but what the hell. It did get published, and I am protecting the identity of the blogger.

Just think of all the fun we could have had if s/he hadn’t gotten cold feet…

Since me and Jared and Kullervo all rated “assassin,” I’m convinced that it’s reading Tim’s blog that makes you good in bed.

I would just like to state for the record–and for the benefit of the Perfect/Party Wives in our midst (ahem), as well as Tim’s reputation for having a blog that contributes to good sex–that Perfect and Party Wives are also good in bed…just in different ways.

You can probably figure out, from the whole “Party” and “Perfect” descriptions, in what ways those are.

Submissive wife (the one wife no one has gotten yet) is not very good, but mostly because she hates it.

For BYU alums who took organic chemistry from Bradshaw (now retired): I don’t know why, but the poor choice of rose positioning reminds me of Bradshaw intentionally mispronouncing phthalic acid throughout the first lecture that chemical and its derivatives were introduced to the students. Prurient Mormons aren’t to sly about it.

I am also on the market, but any man worth my time will have to understand why my polygamist Facebook marriage comes first. So don’t let your singleness hold you back…besides, Katie needs another party wife to keep her company.

I noticed that you asked for DNA evidence for proof of Joseph Smith, Jr. being a polygamist. I can respect your need for such evidence, but do you also require that kind of evidence for proof of the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness? Can you provide us with DNA evidence that “proves” the origin of the people in the BoM?

If you don’t need concrete DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon to believe it (because the DNA evidence isn’t there and I’m assuming you believe the book), I don’t see how you can cite the lack of DNA evidence to disprove the polygamy theories. You don’t get it both ways, buddy.

DH was playing Team Fortress 2 today when he noticed a player with the screen name Ninja Jesus… which of course prompted me to mention Polygamy Assassin Jesus. Which is now his screen name. So, ya know, wave if you see him.

Aha! proof that this is the only true and living thread—despite what those apostates Seth and Tim say. “By their fruits ye shall know them….” How many other threads have generated online gaming names? Yeah, didn’t think so.

So, my husband had an interview tonight with his SP, who of course wanted to know why his wife isn’t a member. He told him that it’s because the church won’t let me have more than one husband in the next life. Also because I refuse to wear a bra over an undershirt.

My husband is awesome.

The SP said that if I’d only pray about these things sincerely, I would see that they’re true. We’ll see how that works out.

I think what he said is the church won’t let me practice polyandry in the next life, and the SP gave him a blank stare; Paul thinks he didn’t know what “polyandry” was. After the bra-undershirt comment, the SP laughed and made his “she needs to pray about it” comment. That was the recap I got.

We’ve gotten so tired of people asking Paul this question at interviews and other places, we’ve begun getting really creative with our answers.

I personely love this picture. I never thought of polygamy when I saw it. I always thought of how Jesus loved the youth and children. Now the rose… if you do your research you’ll notice that the rose in the painting is yellow/gold. With the young women values the color of gold represents virtue and yellow represents good works. Also I don’t see loving looks on their faces, but yearning looks, looks yearning for knowledge. The womens’ postures are either representing their love of the lord, like how Mary Magdeline and her sister loved the lord, and how he is our older brother, or the artist just put them that way not thinking of the can of worms it would open up. With the polygamy thing and Brigham Young, wasn’t it Brigham Young that stopped polygamy. Also polygamy with the early saints was just a way to help the women because this is the early to mid 1800s we’re talking about when women had pretty much no rights so they couldn’t own land, get a job, and do many other things women can do today. In the 1800s women couldn’t really survive without a husband, and their husbands were killed just because of their religion, just because they were mormon. So just drop the mormon polygamy thing already. Those were special circumstances and now women can provide for themselves without a husband, so there is no need.

Well, I’m not sure I buy that women can provide for themselves. It’s still a harsh, cruel world where a delicate, unprotected woman is likely to get used and abused.

That said, I have no doubt that a female ninja-assassin could take care of herself, and I think that’s part of the beautiful message of the painting. I mean, look at those ladies: so calm, so relaxed—they just know that the only thing they have to fear is each other.

As for “Brigham Young that stopped polygamy”, I think that may be partially correct. I’m not sure about this—does anyone know of any polyandry under Brigham Young’s leadership? (No fair counting deceased husband’s, mind you.) Polygyny of course rolled right along, but polyandry?

Carnal men think like you. The photo is young adult women who looks up to Christ as they will search for good men like Christ. Satan has a good way of twisting things around huh and I know that you agree. We don’t see Christ as carnal men. We see him as a loving who died for us and we must repent so we may live with him.

Brian, you said earlier: does anyone know of any polyandry under Brigham Young’s leadership?

I know this is a terrible source, but an article at ex-Mormon.org says:

27 Mar, 1857 – Brigham Young permits woman to select faithful elders to act as “proxy” to father children for her sexually impotent living husband. Young performs polyandrous ceremony “for time,” and the relationship lasts for several years producting [sic] two sons, (1858, 1861). Mother’s legal husband raises boys with her, and later tells them he loves them as much as if they were his natural sons. Both boys grow up to become devoted Mormons and polygamists. This is last knon [sic] case of authorized polyandry.

Hey i think youre all way off the mark here. This painting depicts the Saviour holding a white rose which he is clearly refering to as he talks to the young women. White roses represent purity and virtue. The Saviour is teching the young women gospel doctines about virtue.It conveys the fact that the Saviour loves and respects women and acknowledges their divine nature. It has nothing to do with polygamy, but rather teaching our youth about virtue. I only came across this page by accident while searching under virtue! Christ was not a polygamist, and neither are true Latter Day SAints. Im not sure where most of you have got your material from, but if you knew anything about the true gospel and the teachings of the Temple, you would know im speaking the truth. The church no longer condones or practices polygamy. There is no need for it in this day and age. It was only practised by way of commandment when there was a need to ‘raise up seed unto the Lord’. There is no longer such as need, as the church is spreading rapidly through missionary efforts and the proclamation of gospel truth. Go read the Book of Mormon

Im not sure where most of you have got your material from, but if you knew anything about the true gospel and the teachings of the Temple, you would know im speaking the truth. The church no longer condones or practices polygamy.

Jesus spent a little time with the Young Women’s class in the T’bilisi, Georgia Branch explaining that if they wanted to find nice Young Men to marry, they’d have to either convert some or sell flowers to save up for an international flight…

We’re well into July and no new comments?! I guess I must add to this since I read everything up to this point… I wavered a bit during the RPG discussion, because somehow I missed out on that experience. But I didn’t miss out on the Young Women’s sunday school class experience (although I did attempt to hide in the bathroom and occasionally the room reserved for nursing mothers) and all I can say is I’m so glad I was never confronted with this picture. It was bad enough to have red robed Jesus watching out as I attempted to squirm out of piano practice. These comments brought back so many memories and lots of laughs!

Whitney, we all know that you won’t be truly happy until you’re married with kids. So, the sooner you deal with that and move on to find a husband (which, btw, apparently Herndon, VA and Arlington, VA are in the top ten for places to find a sugar daddy), the happier you will be. You didn’t know you weren’t happy? You are clearly deluding yourself.

Katie–not only is everything on the Internet true, but when bottles of stuff say “New and Improved”, and you get past the cognitive dissonance of something being both new and improved (because, um, how is it both?), it becomes clear that that is always true too, because otherwise, how could they print that on a bottle?!

Licked cupcake?!! What the…?! Perhaps I am blocking this one, but I don’t remember that. I should mention that most of my high school years were blissfully spent in the Middle East, where church-going was limited, so I missed out on a lot of very special moments.

Next time I have a daughter, I’m gonna not give her a middle name so that her maiden name can be her middle name when she gets married. It’s important for her to understand that she isn’t a complete person until she’s someone’s wife.

Whitney, you do realize that your sugar daddy that you find in Arlington is going to be an old man, right? It’s kind of one of the problems. The ones in Herndon are younger, I think, and you can totally catch a ride with me. I’m headed to Herndon tomorrow.

Jack, I think you’re on to something. Have I told any of you the story of when one of my interns declared that a woman who wouldn’t take his last name was clearly not mature enough for marriage? Imagine the look of terror on his face when I incinerated his soul with my eyes.

It was even better when one of my highly successful coworkers, who was in her late 30s, got married shortly thereafter and kept her maiden name because, well, she had made a name for herself. Pure awesome.

Okay, I just googled “LDS licked cupcake” and oh, what joy! I think I even got a link to a blog by Katie L. I definitely would have remembered that lesson, so I guess I never got it.

Whitney – I kept my maiden name when I married, mostly because I was too lazy to do all that was required to change it, and also because my husband is from Spain where it is not normal for a woman to change her name. My family (very Mo – word is that Brigham Young officiated one of my gggg-grandfather’s 7 marriages…) was appalled. My great aunt wouldn’t stop muttering about it as she looked over my wedding album. (Well, getting married in a Catholic Church in Spain was also a big slap in the face, too, I guess.)

Also wanted to say that I am not at all clear what all of your religious affiliations are, and that is a cool thing. I love that you all can joke and make merry and not be offended.

There’s always the “let’s make up a new last name” thing, but Meyers and Jeffries don’t really combine well. Jeffers? Meyries? Blech.

I suppose you could deny middle names to both your male children and your female children so that each of them can incorporate their spouse’s last names into their names someday, but being Protestant, I still don’t like the idea of dependency on marriage for completeness, for either gender.

So, I say just pick one person’s last name or the other and go with it. If I ever get married again though, I’m pretty sure I won’t change it again. Especially not if I get married again later in life after I’ve had several kids with the Meyers name and made a professional name for myself.

Christian of some sort — Katyjane (also ex-Mormon); I’m not sure what type of Christian KJ considers herself. I think she’s still exploring that. Chris Smith is a former evangelical now Christian pluralist.

Follower of James Strang but not a Strangite — Rick Hurd

If I left anyone off that list, it’s because I don’t like you. And I don’t like some of the people on that list either.

Here’s how it works in Spain. When/if you have children, they take both the father and mother’s names. For example: Penelope Cruz is actually named Penelope Cruz Sanchez, Cruz being her father’s first last name and Sanchez being her mother’s first last name. If I had changed my name, my (currently nonexistent) children would be named Boy Menchero Menchero, which would confuse people and lead them to believe my husband and I were brother and sister or at least kissing cousins. As it stands now, Boy would be called Boy Menchero Wright, which would just lead to teasing that his mother is a guiri (Spain’s version of gringo.) In Spain you can’t just choose family names because you like them. You have to use your existing legal name. I think it is really difficult to legally change your name.

People generally refer to us as “Mr & Mrs Menchero” jointly and Mr. (señor) Menchero and Ms. (señora) Wright individually. In Spain I understand that it is also very acceptable to refer to me as señora de Menchero, which means, of course, that I belong to señor Menchero. Nice.

I do think this last name policy makes genealogy infinitely easier in Spain, so that’s a bonus.

Thanks for the religion breakdown. So diverse! I am an ex-mormon (although my name is still on the books) who is still searching for answers, lately I’ve become interested in the open source religion movement, yoism. 😉

I would have liked to have kept my maiden name, but I just think the “Mr. Meyers and Mrs. Jeffries” thing would have been a pain in the ass.

It has been a hassle only when we get new ward clerks and they don’t know what to do with the name thing. (It is permitted in the Church’s software, but not intuitively so.) In my ward, we have two such couples, so they’ve got it figured out by now. In the rest of life? No big deal, except that some people assume we aren’t married and/or that not all of our kids are biologically both of ours.

Also wanted to say that I am not at all clear what all of your religious affiliations are, and that is a cool thing. I love that you all can joke and make merry and not be offended.

Yeah, we can all barely communicate when it comes to things like church financial statements or the meaning of the word “Christian,” and it takes us weeks to “move on” or truly “drop it,” but when it comes to discussing Jesus’ role in fine art, sex, video games, and ninjas we come together like a pack of hyenas…err…an Illinois mob…umm…a blood clot…well, like something.

globalgal ~ Welcome to the blog. That’s an interesting way of doing things in Spain. It sounds similar to the solution Artemis from fMh opted for in her family.

Oh, and I sign all my stuff with just a smiley face, proving that I’m much lazier than anyone else here.

Eric ~ Don’t people ever call you Brother Yourwife’slastname? Jana Riess (who’s a Mormon married to a Methodist, hai moar interfaith marriages!) mentioned that in one of her articles. What did you give your kids for last names?

BJM asked:Don’t people ever call you Brother Yourwife’slastname?Yes, and she often gets called Sister Mylastname.

My normal response is to ignore it in cases where it doesn’t matter if the person has the name right or not. Otherwise, I usually say something like, “My last name is Mylastname, but SallyAnn and I are married.” And that’s usually all it takes for most people to get it down right (at least until they send us formal correspondence such as wedding invitations, but that’s a whole other story).

Jack said:

It’s important for her [a future daughter] to understand that she isn’t a complete person until she’s someone’s wife.

I’d assume you’d say the same thing about a son?

Certainly there is plenty of that sort of thinking in the LDS world (and probably evangelicalism, but at least then it isn’t encouraged by the theology). I’m amazed at how many missionaries I’ve talked to (we frequently have them over for dinner) who fully expect to be married within a year of the time they get home, who think it’s almost their duty to do so. That’s way too young to get married (no offense intended to those here who were married that young, and more power to you if you’ve made such a marriage work). I’m not sure what that has to do with polygamy, but that’s true for most of this conversation.

I got into a delightful little back-and-forth awhile back on another thread with a woman who was pretty dismissive of women who choose not to marry or have children. Jack was kindly reminding me of the “lesson” that I should have picked up from that :).

Eric ~ My husband was married about 14-15 months after arriving home from his mission, so maybe I’m the wrong person to be commenting on that subject, but I definitely don’t feel like anyone (male or female) should be pressured to marry young.

I do think that it’s worse for LDS women than it is for men though. I remember reading an interview with GBH where he basically confirmed that the mission age for women is held up to 21 instead of 19 in hopes that they’ll get married before then, and the duration is shortened from 2 years to 18 months so that they can hurry up and get home and start making babies. I had several sister missionaries tell me as much. At least LDS men don’t actually have church policies railroading them into marrying by age 21; they just have a lot of cultural pressure.

Anyways, my comment on the names thing was just because I knew quite a few women at BYU who lacked a middle name. The answer was always the same: “They didn’t give me a middle name so that my maiden name could be my middle name when I got married.” Wow, carving out a little niche for patriarchy from the cradle, lovely.

BTW, my husband and I have a Mutuality subscription, which is like the Ensign for the Christians for Biblical Equality organization. He actually likes it and usually reads it because they do a great job going after bad male stereotypes and expectations as well as bad female ones.

We got married young. I was 22, and katyjane was 19. It worked for us; we’re celebrating our eighth anniversary next week. I’m not saying it’s for everyone, but there certainly isn’t anything wrong with it.

“Are you forgetting one of our presidents or do I just not know something about our last president (George W Bush)?”

Nixon was a freaking genius compared to Bush, with a halfway decent legislative agenda and significant diplomatic accomplishents. Sure he, as Bush, killed a hell of a lot of people relatively needlessly, but at least he was not a complete partisan buffoon who relinquished signficant power to a maniacal Vice President.

But I alas, I have strayed from the topic at hand. . . sorry folks, I won’t let it happen again.

I actually take full responsibility for the US’s actions in SE Asia in the 1960’s. I could have chosen to be born in the 1920’s to a political family, thus positioning myself for the presidency and thus the power to avoid Vietnam. Instead, I chose to wait until the 70’s for my turn on earth. My reason was that I knew kids’ television programming would reach its zenith in the 80’s.

There you go, that is really big of you Brian. I was going to step up and take at least 13% of the blame for the disaster in Cambodia, since I could have chosen to be a Viet Cong general. (But who could really blame me for avoiding that role.)

I think we actually have to blame the faceless sister-wife with the pink sash in the painting. Word on the street is that in the pre-existence her behavior swayed the powers-that-be away setting human society on a female-dominated cultural path. So, I think we have to blame her for a good portion of human warfare.

But, then again, I don’t think we would have nearly as much MMA/cage-fighting on television, so on balance, I don’t hold this against her that much.

If you want a good example of a strong-willed female character, I suggest Ariel from The Little Mermaid. She does whatever she wants with no regard for her father’s authority. True, she just about gets the entire ocean destroyed because of her selfish impetuousness, but I say: you go girl!

I am going to have to agree with Brian on this, Different Strokes is going to edge out laying siege to French colonial positions, organizing rice logistics through Cambodia, and organizing peasants farmers with Kalashnikov’s for guerrilla assaults on american positions, etc. . . . but not by as much as you think.

One thought that I can’t get out of my head is, How much do good looks matter to Jesus when choosing a wife. I mean, he was fully human, so you would think they are going to play some role, but its hard to see him discounting the ultra sweet spirited potential mate simply because she had a horse-face. Word on the street was that he was not particularly good looking, (Del Parson’s depictions notwithstanding) so he is naturally going to want to have a woman a bit out of his league.

That said, if he could engineer reality, and predestine people you would think that his wives’ would be the hottest women around, unless there was some PR reason that would distract from his mission (but I can’t see how some smoking-hot arm candy would make him less popular, or even less likely to be crucified by the jealous and powerful.

I am going to submit that if Jesus’s wives were not teh hottest women around its going to be de-facto evidence that He does not have the pervasive power over reality that Evangelicals claim. Maybe this picture is actually a complex theological statement about the limitations of God as well as a celebration (and irrefutable proof)of Jesus’ polygamy. Del Parson’s is a genius!!!!

This picture is portraying love for the daughters of god NoT poligamy. I think that people should stop bashing mormons for no reason. Your all ridiculous jesus was not crucified because of his polygamist beliefs it was because people could not and still cant accept the beliefs of others. Everyone is open to an opinion , just accept the fact that lds saints actually have morals and can truthfully live up to the title of SAINT.Everyone will get what they deserve on judgement day weither it be punishment or riches and who are you people to decide which?

Kara: I think you make a good point: “people could not and still cant accept the beliefs of others.” For example, I believe that the pink-belted ninja wife (aka katyjane) should be praised for her efforts to bring awareness to mixed martial arts combat in the preexistence, whereas Jared wants to condemn her all because of a few thousand wars she caused.

Wait, I thought I was clear on this. I am willing to accept the trade-off of perpetual culture of war on earth so that I can enjoy a good cage fight on TV. Apparently Jesus was too. Why else would he have married her?

Wow… I can’t believe I read through this entire thread. A life; I have none.

I remember seeing this picture when I was in Young Women’s, and it never occured to me to be polygamous in nature. Now, I will never look at it the same again. I’ve also been told that this picture (http://acharlie.tripod.com/seccom.jpg) depicts Jesus with his thousands of wives surrounding him. It was one of my favorites before that, and now it’s ruined. Of course, that could be because the idea of polygamy (or, more specifically, me and my husband having to engage in it,) makes me feel ill.

Actually, Jared, if you look carefully, only four of those angels are really “in focus” in this picture, which corresponds perfectly to the four sister-wives. Without the colored belts it gets awfully confusing though.

How lovely to open my mail program this morning (it is morning where I am) and find all these comments on my favorite blog post! And then to learn that there is another LDS-themed blog post with more comments? I guess I know what I’m doing this afternoon…

While fishing on the Galilee, Jesus paused and thought, “I feel the temptation to belt some of my wives. . . But I will of course refrain, since I don’t give into such temptation, no matter how much they bug.”

She can’t delete them anyway, its Tim’s post and he obviously has given up on regulating this threat. . . but I resent the notion that something new, unique and different couldn’t be gleaned from each of those seemingly identical comments.

To Jack’s sub-topic

I wonder if anybody ever walked in on Jesus? Probably not, that would have been a legendary story.

Niiiice, Tim! I like this one, which proves that people who disrespect the Polygamous Jesus thread go to Hell (looking at you, psychochemiker), and this one, which shows that sometimes even Polygamous Jesus gets the blues.

That kind of thing might be a helpful “reason to believe” for a fledgling believer, but when you’ve come as far as I have, you will realize that the fact that Polygamist Jesus likes Mexican food is self-evident.

I have lain three days and nights in anguish of my soul over it, after an angel caught me and my friends going about trying to destroy the work of this thread and knocked me unconscious for a harrowing repentance-coma.

Are you denying the power of Polygamist Jesus’s atonement? How Mormon of you.

Interesting: after 700+ comments, the “blasphemy” accusation has only been thrown out 3 times on this thread. Not what I would expect….

And Kullervo’s not kidding about that repentance-coma. I witnessed it, and lo: katyjane said that he stanketh, and she supposed him to be dead. But I did not think that he stanketh, but lay, as it were, in the depths of sorrowful anguishingness for his dissin’ of the prophet Parsons. And for this I did rejoice, that his bacteria-laden-arachnid induced travails might by some means humble him to submission to the True Thread.

You know, when I said that, I thought “this is probably a mistake, because I’m pretty sure they’ve all decided who is who, and based on sheer probability, the curly-haired one is not going to be Katy.”

So, after thinking about it while I slept in the bathtub. I realize how tragically wrong I was. I am sorry and I take it back.

I like you Kullervo, but I just don’t think it could ever work out between us. Paul only lets me joke about polyandry; I’m pretty sure he would be quite distraught if I actually brought a second husband home.

For the record, when I passed out names by tagging the picture in my Facebook profile, I just started in the bottom-right corner and went counter-clockwise, doing myself last. I didn’t even think about who looked like who or say, “Hey, the curly-haired submissive one is hottest, that’s gonna be me.”

Hey everyone, this thread is even more awesome if you listen to Megadeth while you read it. It’s like how Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” goes with Wizard of Oz, except with thrash metal instead of prog rock. Seriously. Try it with “Rust In Peace.”

Jared: Your prolonged northern exposure and suffering under the fist of a liberal, freedom-hating Finnish government has you confused. My point was that PJ exhibits a combination of the three individuals shown: wiry toughness, serious pain skillz, and chick magnetism.

It’s worth noting that Chuck Norris trained under PJ. And while I agree that Fedor is an incredibly dangerous individual, he is like the sun and Chuck is VY Canis Majoris. In fact, several years ago Pride hosted an event featuring Chuck Norris fighting in every weight classification (for the lightweight division, just a few snips of his chest hair were used). But you’ve never seen or heard of it because everyone there was killed as soon as he took off his robe and the entire arena was vaporized by Chuck’s awesomeness. Fedor later visited the site, inhaled some of the vapors, miraculously survived, and transformed into the great fighter you know.

i’m coming in late to the party but no-one has bothered to mention the passage in the bible where Jesus states that the Lord (uhm… that would be Jesus if i’m not mistaken) took 5 virgin brides. The passage would be Matthew 25:1-13

Lynn: Clearly you’re trying to use scripture to point out that Polygamous Jesus, with his four wives in the painting, is short one wife and thus you should be chosen as the fifth. Your goal is commendable, but you should know that Polygamous Jesus chooses his wives based solely on: